On 11/14/23 19:06, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 11/14/23 18:47, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
>> <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do I fix this?
>>>>
>>>> You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the
>>>> no-longer
>>>> needed dependencies.
>>>
>>> dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
>
> On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 15 Apr 24 2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
> > librpm.so.9.4.0
> > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24 2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> >
> > so
> > cd /usr/lib64
> > ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
> >
> > Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there. But if that link is
> > missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
> > also gone.
> >
>
> # ls -al librpm.so*
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 ->
> librpm.so.10.0.0
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0
>
>
> Hmmmmmmm ...
>
Okay,
I got dnf to work again with the following:
/usr/lib64# ln -s librpmio.so.10.0.0 librpmio.so.9
/usr/lib64# ln -s librpm.so.10.0.0 librpm.so.9
Now how do I fix it right?
Just posted:
dnf looking for outdated librpmio and librpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249732
dnf was still on FC38.
The real fix:
# dnf upgrade dnf --releasever=39
Failed on its ....
# dnf upgrade --releasever=39
3000+ file later,
# dnf upgrade dnf --releasever=39 --best --allowerasing
273 files later, and
# rpm -qa dnf
dnf-4.18.1-1.fc39.noarch
Fixed