Fedora 29 VirtualBox possible conflict
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I did a complete re-install (not upgrade) to Fedora 29 in November 2018. At that
time, a Fedora-29-compatible version of VirtualBox was not yet ready. Discussed
below the ========= line in this query are the steps that I took to (unsuccessfully)
attempt installing VirtualBox in Fedora 29 last November.
I am about to install VirtualBox in Fedora 29 by following the instructions in this link:
https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/
What preliminary steps (if any) should I execute to first undo my unsuccessful
attempt?
=========================================================
For reference purposes, the attempt was documented by the following query:
Fedora 29 VirtualBox Installation Malfunction
Pertinent details from the above query follow:
- cd /etc/yum.repos.d/
- wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo
- Update latest packages and check your kernel version
- dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms
- The above command triggered the following error msg:
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo. - Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:
dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The above command triggered the following msgs:
Fedora 29 - x86_64 - VirtualBox
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:45 ago on Sat 17 Nov 2018 03:40:42 PM PST.
No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2
Error: Unable to find a match - Investigating, I then executed:
cd /
find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Results:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm - Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:
Change $releasever to 28
Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The result was several new error messages:
conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit)
needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. - Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed
cd /
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Ignoring *.png files, the results were:
./etc/yum.repos.d/virtualbox.repo
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox-filenames.solvx - Just to emphasize, the following files are no longer present:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
fedora software-installation virtualbox
add a comment |
I did a complete re-install (not upgrade) to Fedora 29 in November 2018. At that
time, a Fedora-29-compatible version of VirtualBox was not yet ready. Discussed
below the ========= line in this query are the steps that I took to (unsuccessfully)
attempt installing VirtualBox in Fedora 29 last November.
I am about to install VirtualBox in Fedora 29 by following the instructions in this link:
https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/
What preliminary steps (if any) should I execute to first undo my unsuccessful
attempt?
=========================================================
For reference purposes, the attempt was documented by the following query:
Fedora 29 VirtualBox Installation Malfunction
Pertinent details from the above query follow:
- cd /etc/yum.repos.d/
- wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo
- Update latest packages and check your kernel version
- dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms
- The above command triggered the following error msg:
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo. - Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:
dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The above command triggered the following msgs:
Fedora 29 - x86_64 - VirtualBox
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:45 ago on Sat 17 Nov 2018 03:40:42 PM PST.
No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2
Error: Unable to find a match - Investigating, I then executed:
cd /
find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Results:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm - Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:
Change $releasever to 28
Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The result was several new error messages:
conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit)
needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. - Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed
cd /
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Ignoring *.png files, the results were:
./etc/yum.repos.d/virtualbox.repo
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox-filenames.solvx - Just to emphasize, the following files are no longer present:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
fedora software-installation virtualbox
Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.
– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00
add a comment |
I did a complete re-install (not upgrade) to Fedora 29 in November 2018. At that
time, a Fedora-29-compatible version of VirtualBox was not yet ready. Discussed
below the ========= line in this query are the steps that I took to (unsuccessfully)
attempt installing VirtualBox in Fedora 29 last November.
I am about to install VirtualBox in Fedora 29 by following the instructions in this link:
https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/
What preliminary steps (if any) should I execute to first undo my unsuccessful
attempt?
=========================================================
For reference purposes, the attempt was documented by the following query:
Fedora 29 VirtualBox Installation Malfunction
Pertinent details from the above query follow:
- cd /etc/yum.repos.d/
- wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo
- Update latest packages and check your kernel version
- dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms
- The above command triggered the following error msg:
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo. - Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:
dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The above command triggered the following msgs:
Fedora 29 - x86_64 - VirtualBox
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:45 ago on Sat 17 Nov 2018 03:40:42 PM PST.
No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2
Error: Unable to find a match - Investigating, I then executed:
cd /
find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Results:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm - Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:
Change $releasever to 28
Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The result was several new error messages:
conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit)
needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. - Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed
cd /
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Ignoring *.png files, the results were:
./etc/yum.repos.d/virtualbox.repo
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox-filenames.solvx - Just to emphasize, the following files are no longer present:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
fedora software-installation virtualbox
I did a complete re-install (not upgrade) to Fedora 29 in November 2018. At that
time, a Fedora-29-compatible version of VirtualBox was not yet ready. Discussed
below the ========= line in this query are the steps that I took to (unsuccessfully)
attempt installing VirtualBox in Fedora 29 last November.
I am about to install VirtualBox in Fedora 29 by following the instructions in this link:
https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/
What preliminary steps (if any) should I execute to first undo my unsuccessful
attempt?
=========================================================
For reference purposes, the attempt was documented by the following query:
Fedora 29 VirtualBox Installation Malfunction
Pertinent details from the above query follow:
- cd /etc/yum.repos.d/
- wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo
- Update latest packages and check your kernel version
- dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms
- The above command triggered the following error msg:
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo. - Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:
dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The above command triggered the following msgs:
Fedora 29 - x86_64 - VirtualBox
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:45 ago on Sat 17 Nov 2018 03:40:42 PM PST.
No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2
Error: Unable to find a match - Investigating, I then executed:
cd /
find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Results:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm - Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:
Change $releasever to 28
Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 - The result was several new error messages:
conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit)
needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. - Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed
cd /
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"
sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*" - Ignoring *.png files, the results were:
./etc/yum.repos.d/virtualbox.repo
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox.solv
./var/cache/dnf/virtualbox-filenames.solvx - Just to emphasize, the following files are no longer present:
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.20-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
./var/cache/PackageKit/29/metadata/updates-29-x86_64/packages/virtualbox-guest-additions-5.2.22-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
fedora software-installation virtualbox
fedora software-installation virtualbox
edited Feb 25 at 23:56
user2661923
asked Feb 25 at 21:22
user2661923user2661923
179115
179115
Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.
– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00
add a comment |
Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.
– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00
Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.
– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00
Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.
– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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
);
);
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%2f502998%2ffedora-29-virtualbox-possible-conflict%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
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%2f502998%2ffedora-29-virtualbox-possible-conflict%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
Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.
– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00