“Protected multilib versions:” during installation of wine on Fedora 21
I got an error when I try to install wine for fedora 21 with
sudo yum install wine
The error i'm reciving is
Error: Multilib version problems found. This often means that the root
cause is something else and multilib version checking is just
pointing out that there is a problem. Eg.:
1. You have an upgrade for libusbx which is missing some
dependency that another package requires. Yum is trying to
solve this by installing an older version of libusbx of the
different architecture. If you exclude the bad architecture
yum will tell you what the root cause is (which package
requires what). You can try redoing the upgrade with
--exclude libusbx.otherarch ... this should give you an error
message showing the root cause of the problem.
2. You have multiple architectures of libusbx installed, but
yum can only see an upgrade for one of those architectures.
If you don't want/need both architectures anymore then you
can remove the one with the missing update and everything
will work.
3. You have duplicate versions of libusbx installed already.
You can use "yum check" to get yum show these errors.
...you can also use --setopt=protected_multilib=false to remove
this checking, however this is almost never the correct thing to
do as something else is very likely to go wrong (often causing
much more problems).
Protected multilib versions: libusbx-1.0.19-2.fc21.i686 != libusbx-1.0.19-100.rc2.fc21.x86_64
How can I fix this? yum and rpm only finds the x86_64 version. I get this error
Package(s) libusbx.i686 available, but not installed.
fedora yum wine
add a comment |
I got an error when I try to install wine for fedora 21 with
sudo yum install wine
The error i'm reciving is
Error: Multilib version problems found. This often means that the root
cause is something else and multilib version checking is just
pointing out that there is a problem. Eg.:
1. You have an upgrade for libusbx which is missing some
dependency that another package requires. Yum is trying to
solve this by installing an older version of libusbx of the
different architecture. If you exclude the bad architecture
yum will tell you what the root cause is (which package
requires what). You can try redoing the upgrade with
--exclude libusbx.otherarch ... this should give you an error
message showing the root cause of the problem.
2. You have multiple architectures of libusbx installed, but
yum can only see an upgrade for one of those architectures.
If you don't want/need both architectures anymore then you
can remove the one with the missing update and everything
will work.
3. You have duplicate versions of libusbx installed already.
You can use "yum check" to get yum show these errors.
...you can also use --setopt=protected_multilib=false to remove
this checking, however this is almost never the correct thing to
do as something else is very likely to go wrong (often causing
much more problems).
Protected multilib versions: libusbx-1.0.19-2.fc21.i686 != libusbx-1.0.19-100.rc2.fc21.x86_64
How can I fix this? yum and rpm only finds the x86_64 version. I get this error
Package(s) libusbx.i686 available, but not installed.
fedora yum wine
add a comment |
I got an error when I try to install wine for fedora 21 with
sudo yum install wine
The error i'm reciving is
Error: Multilib version problems found. This often means that the root
cause is something else and multilib version checking is just
pointing out that there is a problem. Eg.:
1. You have an upgrade for libusbx which is missing some
dependency that another package requires. Yum is trying to
solve this by installing an older version of libusbx of the
different architecture. If you exclude the bad architecture
yum will tell you what the root cause is (which package
requires what). You can try redoing the upgrade with
--exclude libusbx.otherarch ... this should give you an error
message showing the root cause of the problem.
2. You have multiple architectures of libusbx installed, but
yum can only see an upgrade for one of those architectures.
If you don't want/need both architectures anymore then you
can remove the one with the missing update and everything
will work.
3. You have duplicate versions of libusbx installed already.
You can use "yum check" to get yum show these errors.
...you can also use --setopt=protected_multilib=false to remove
this checking, however this is almost never the correct thing to
do as something else is very likely to go wrong (often causing
much more problems).
Protected multilib versions: libusbx-1.0.19-2.fc21.i686 != libusbx-1.0.19-100.rc2.fc21.x86_64
How can I fix this? yum and rpm only finds the x86_64 version. I get this error
Package(s) libusbx.i686 available, but not installed.
fedora yum wine
I got an error when I try to install wine for fedora 21 with
sudo yum install wine
The error i'm reciving is
Error: Multilib version problems found. This often means that the root
cause is something else and multilib version checking is just
pointing out that there is a problem. Eg.:
1. You have an upgrade for libusbx which is missing some
dependency that another package requires. Yum is trying to
solve this by installing an older version of libusbx of the
different architecture. If you exclude the bad architecture
yum will tell you what the root cause is (which package
requires what). You can try redoing the upgrade with
--exclude libusbx.otherarch ... this should give you an error
message showing the root cause of the problem.
2. You have multiple architectures of libusbx installed, but
yum can only see an upgrade for one of those architectures.
If you don't want/need both architectures anymore then you
can remove the one with the missing update and everything
will work.
3. You have duplicate versions of libusbx installed already.
You can use "yum check" to get yum show these errors.
...you can also use --setopt=protected_multilib=false to remove
this checking, however this is almost never the correct thing to
do as something else is very likely to go wrong (often causing
much more problems).
Protected multilib versions: libusbx-1.0.19-2.fc21.i686 != libusbx-1.0.19-100.rc2.fc21.x86_64
How can I fix this? yum and rpm only finds the x86_64 version. I get this error
Package(s) libusbx.i686 available, but not installed.
fedora yum wine
fedora yum wine
asked Feb 12 '15 at 21:35
bitcasualbitcasual
134
134
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
For some reason, I still had libusbx.x86_64 0:1.0.19-100.rc2.fc20 installed on my upgraded F21 system. I could resolve this by running
$ sudo yum downgrade libusbx.x86_64
You need to somehow bring the versions of the x86_64 and the i686 package in sync, and as 1.0.19-2 < 1.0.19-100 my assumption would be that downgrading the installed package should help.
add a comment |
In my case it was Chromium. Downgrading did not work. Had to remove it and disable repos to remove protection. Your profile should remain under /home/user/.config/chromium ,but if you need anything specific like bookmarks export them beforehand:
yum remove chromium
-Change enabled=1 to enabled=0
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/spot-chromium.repo
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo
yum install wine
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f877251%2fprotected-multilib-versions-during-installation-of-wine-on-fedora-21%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For some reason, I still had libusbx.x86_64 0:1.0.19-100.rc2.fc20 installed on my upgraded F21 system. I could resolve this by running
$ sudo yum downgrade libusbx.x86_64
You need to somehow bring the versions of the x86_64 and the i686 package in sync, and as 1.0.19-2 < 1.0.19-100 my assumption would be that downgrading the installed package should help.
add a comment |
For some reason, I still had libusbx.x86_64 0:1.0.19-100.rc2.fc20 installed on my upgraded F21 system. I could resolve this by running
$ sudo yum downgrade libusbx.x86_64
You need to somehow bring the versions of the x86_64 and the i686 package in sync, and as 1.0.19-2 < 1.0.19-100 my assumption would be that downgrading the installed package should help.
add a comment |
For some reason, I still had libusbx.x86_64 0:1.0.19-100.rc2.fc20 installed on my upgraded F21 system. I could resolve this by running
$ sudo yum downgrade libusbx.x86_64
You need to somehow bring the versions of the x86_64 and the i686 package in sync, and as 1.0.19-2 < 1.0.19-100 my assumption would be that downgrading the installed package should help.
For some reason, I still had libusbx.x86_64 0:1.0.19-100.rc2.fc20 installed on my upgraded F21 system. I could resolve this by running
$ sudo yum downgrade libusbx.x86_64
You need to somehow bring the versions of the x86_64 and the i686 package in sync, and as 1.0.19-2 < 1.0.19-100 my assumption would be that downgrading the installed package should help.
answered Mar 27 '15 at 11:43
WolfgangWolfgang
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
In my case it was Chromium. Downgrading did not work. Had to remove it and disable repos to remove protection. Your profile should remain under /home/user/.config/chromium ,but if you need anything specific like bookmarks export them beforehand:
yum remove chromium
-Change enabled=1 to enabled=0
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/spot-chromium.repo
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo
yum install wine
add a comment |
In my case it was Chromium. Downgrading did not work. Had to remove it and disable repos to remove protection. Your profile should remain under /home/user/.config/chromium ,but if you need anything specific like bookmarks export them beforehand:
yum remove chromium
-Change enabled=1 to enabled=0
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/spot-chromium.repo
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo
yum install wine
add a comment |
In my case it was Chromium. Downgrading did not work. Had to remove it and disable repos to remove protection. Your profile should remain under /home/user/.config/chromium ,but if you need anything specific like bookmarks export them beforehand:
yum remove chromium
-Change enabled=1 to enabled=0
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/spot-chromium.repo
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo
yum install wine
In my case it was Chromium. Downgrading did not work. Had to remove it and disable repos to remove protection. Your profile should remain under /home/user/.config/chromium ,but if you need anything specific like bookmarks export them beforehand:
yum remove chromium
-Change enabled=1 to enabled=0
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/spot-chromium.repo
nano /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo
yum install wine
edited Aug 11 '15 at 17:53
Francisco Tapia
2,24331340
2,24331340
answered Aug 10 '15 at 21:56
zoranszorans
12
12
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- 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%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f877251%2fprotected-multilib-versions-during-installation-of-wine-on-fedora-21%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
