How do I find available versions of package for downgrade?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
1
I am having issues with an update of the ImageMagick package breaking 3rd party software on a CentOS 6.x server. I know that some prior version of ImageMagick worked OK.
How do I find out which versions of ImageMagick are available to perform a yum downgrade operation ?
$> sudo yum downgrade ImageMagick-c++
Only Upgrade available on package: ImageMagick-c++-6.7.2.7-2.el6.i686
Nothing to do
And, if I try the following, I get:
$> sudo yum --showduplicates list ImageMagick-c++ | expand
Installed Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 @base
Available Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
ImageMagick-c++.x86_64 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
centos yum upgrade
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
add a comment |
1
I am having issues with an update of the ImageMagick package breaking 3rd party software on a CentOS 6.x server. I know that some prior version of ImageMagick worked OK.
How do I find out which versions of ImageMagick are available to perform a yum downgrade operation ?
$> sudo yum downgrade ImageMagick-c++
Only Upgrade available on package: ImageMagick-c++-6.7.2.7-2.el6.i686
Nothing to do
And, if I try the following, I get:
$> sudo yum --showduplicates list ImageMagick-c++ | expand
Installed Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 @base
Available Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
ImageMagick-c++.x86_64 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
centos yum upgrade
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
Possible duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– JRFerguson
Aug 15 '15 at 14:47
@JRFerguson I think my question is distinct based on this comment: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 15:17
add a comment |
1
1
1
1
I am having issues with an update of the ImageMagick package breaking 3rd party software on a CentOS 6.x server. I know that some prior version of ImageMagick worked OK.
How do I find out which versions of ImageMagick are available to perform a yum downgrade operation ?
$> sudo yum downgrade ImageMagick-c++
Only Upgrade available on package: ImageMagick-c++-6.7.2.7-2.el6.i686
Nothing to do
And, if I try the following, I get:
$> sudo yum --showduplicates list ImageMagick-c++ | expand
Installed Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 @base
Available Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
ImageMagick-c++.x86_64 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
centos yum upgrade
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
I am having issues with an update of the ImageMagick package breaking 3rd party software on a CentOS 6.x server. I know that some prior version of ImageMagick worked OK.
How do I find out which versions of ImageMagick are available to perform a yum downgrade operation ?
$> sudo yum downgrade ImageMagick-c++
Only Upgrade available on package: ImageMagick-c++-6.7.2.7-2.el6.i686
Nothing to do
And, if I try the following, I get:
$> sudo yum --showduplicates list ImageMagick-c++ | expand
Installed Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 @base
Available Packages
ImageMagick-c++.i686 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
ImageMagick-c++.x86_64 6.7.2.7-2.el6 base
centos yum upgrade
centos yum upgrade
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
edited Aug 15 '15 at 17:10
perror
1,91641935
1,91641935
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
asked Aug 15 '15 at 14:10
mattmmattm
1114
1114
Possible duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– JRFerguson
Aug 15 '15 at 14:47
@JRFerguson I think my question is distinct based on this comment: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 15:17
add a comment |
Possible duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– JRFerguson
Aug 15 '15 at 14:47
@JRFerguson I think my question is distinct based on this comment: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 15:17
Possible duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– JRFerguson
Aug 15 '15 at 14:47
Possible duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– JRFerguson
Aug 15 '15 at 14:47
@JRFerguson I think my question is distinct based on this comment: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 15:17
@JRFerguson I think my question is distinct based on this comment: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 15:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
0
Downgrade is very straightforward when package have not any dependencies, which affect the downgrade and is more difficult with packages that have dependencies. YUM downgrade does not resolve dependencies automatically, so it must be done manually. If you wan to that then use yum downgrade package.
(kindly tell the error message, i will edit my answer then)
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f223387%2fhow-do-i-find-available-versions-of-package-for-downgrade%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
0
Downgrade is very straightforward when package have not any dependencies, which affect the downgrade and is more difficult with packages that have dependencies. YUM downgrade does not resolve dependencies automatically, so it must be done manually. If you wan to that then use yum downgrade package.
(kindly tell the error message, i will edit my answer then)
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
add a comment |
0
Downgrade is very straightforward when package have not any dependencies, which affect the downgrade and is more difficult with packages that have dependencies. YUM downgrade does not resolve dependencies automatically, so it must be done manually. If you wan to that then use yum downgrade package.
(kindly tell the error message, i will edit my answer then)
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
add a comment |
0
0
0
Downgrade is very straightforward when package have not any dependencies, which affect the downgrade and is more difficult with packages that have dependencies. YUM downgrade does not resolve dependencies automatically, so it must be done manually. If you wan to that then use yum downgrade package.
(kindly tell the error message, i will edit my answer then)
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
Downgrade is very straightforward when package have not any dependencies, which affect the downgrade and is more difficult with packages that have dependencies. YUM downgrade does not resolve dependencies automatically, so it must be done manually. If you wan to that then use yum downgrade package.
(kindly tell the error message, i will edit my answer then)
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
answered Aug 15 '15 at 14:38
mud1tmud1t
143117
143117
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
add a comment |
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
your problem seems to be of hardware compatibility of package.check out this RedHat thread link
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:05
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
Shouldn't the i686 version also run on x86-64? I don't see how there should be any hardware compatibility issue with i686.
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:10
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
i686 is actually a 32-bit instruction set (part of the x86 family line), while x86_64 is a 64-bit instruction set (also referred to as amd64).
– mud1t
Aug 15 '15 at 16:18
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
"These 64bit processors are fully backward compatible with their 32bit predecessors. So if you have a 64bit AMD Athlon 64 or Intel EM64T processor, it is up to you whether to install the 64bit x86_64 OS or the 32bit i386/i686 OS... Another thing worth mentioning is that the 64bit x86_64 distribution does come with runtime compatibility for 32bit x86 applications, so it is not entirely a all or nothing decision."
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 16:20
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
Indeed, the CPU can support a 32bit system, but it also requires all the 32bit libraries to work. So, you may even have a double system (32/64bit) but, you will need a double installation at least for the libraries.
– perror
Aug 15 '15 at 17:14
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f223387%2fhow-do-i-find-available-versions-of-package-for-downgrade%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Possible duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– JRFerguson
Aug 15 '15 at 14:47
@JRFerguson I think my question is distinct based on this comment: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/151689/…
– mattm
Aug 15 '15 at 15:17