On 09/14/2016 01:28 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which
> this output makes sense.
>
I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it
drops them from the attempt.
But why is it trying to include them in the first place? There are no
older versions of those packages installed, and they're not dependencies
of the packages that are being updated.
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher arequipeno(a)gmail.com
-------- "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" --------
========================================================================