Fedora 29 VirtualBox possible conflict












0















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:





  1. cd /etc/yum.repos.d/

  2. wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo

  3. Update latest packages and check your kernel version

  4. dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms

  5. The above command triggered the following error msg:

    Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.

  6. Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:

    dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  7. 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

  8. Investigating, I then executed:

    cd /

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"


  9. 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

  10. Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:

    Change $releasever to 28

    Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  11. 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.

  12. Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed

    cd /

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"

  13. 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

  14. 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










share|improve this question

























  • Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.

    – Mioriin
    Mar 2 at 17:00
















0















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:





  1. cd /etc/yum.repos.d/

  2. wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo

  3. Update latest packages and check your kernel version

  4. dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms

  5. The above command triggered the following error msg:

    Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.

  6. Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:

    dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  7. 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

  8. Investigating, I then executed:

    cd /

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"


  9. 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

  10. Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:

    Change $releasever to 28

    Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  11. 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.

  12. Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed

    cd /

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"

  13. 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

  14. 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










share|improve this question

























  • Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.

    – Mioriin
    Mar 2 at 17:00














0












0








0








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:





  1. cd /etc/yum.repos.d/

  2. wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo

  3. Update latest packages and check your kernel version

  4. dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms

  5. The above command triggered the following error msg:

    Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.

  6. Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:

    dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  7. 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

  8. Investigating, I then executed:

    cd /

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"


  9. 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

  10. Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:

    Change $releasever to 28

    Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  11. 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.

  12. Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed

    cd /

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"

  13. 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

  14. 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










share|improve this question
















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:





  1. cd /etc/yum.repos.d/

  2. wget http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/virtualbox.repo

  3. Update latest packages and check your kernel version

  4. dnf install binutils gcc make patch libgomp glibc-headers glibc-devel kernel-headers kernel-devel dkms

  5. The above command triggered the following error msg:

    Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox', ignoring this repo.

  6. Ignoring the above error msg, I then executed:

    dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  7. 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

  8. Investigating, I then executed:

    cd /

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"


  9. 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

  10. Per answer on corresponding query, given by Aaron D. Marasco, I then executed:

    Change $releasever to 28

    Re-attempt : dnf install VirtualBox-5.2

  11. 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.

  12. Re-investigating today, 2-25-2019, I just executed

    cd /

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox.*"

    sudo find -type f -iname "virtualbox*"

  13. 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

  14. 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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 25 at 23:56







user2661923

















asked Feb 25 at 21:22









user2661923user2661923

179114




179114













  • 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





Undo step 10 first, changing the $releasever back to 29, before anything else.

– Mioriin
Mar 2 at 17:00










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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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
















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














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

How to reconfigure Docker Trusted Registry 2.x.x to use CEPH FS mount instead of NFS and other traditional...

is 'sed' thread safe

How to make a Squid Proxy server?