Fedora 29 VirtualBox Installation Malfunction











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












The only Fedora 29 specific instructions that I found are at this link:
https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-guest-additions-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



Since that link is apparently focused on guest additions, I decided to ignore it.



A year ago, I successfully installed VirtualBox in Fedora 26 by following instructions that were similar to the following link: https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



Since I couldn't find corresponding instructions specifically for Fedora 29, I
attempted to follow the same instructions. First, I executed the following
command:



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


Although the command appeared to complete normally, it did show the following message:



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


I then executed:



dnf install VirtualBox-5.2


Results:



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


I am not sure if this is relevant, but just out of curiosity, I 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


It seems as if Fedora 29 (complete install, not upgrade) is installing some
VirtualBox Guest-Addition rpm's. I will post a separate query re what I should do to install guest additions once I've got VirtualBox installed. I mention it in this posting only as it might relate to my specific problem.



Similarly, I'm unsure whether the following link is relevant:
VirtualBox failed to install in Fedora 26



In that link, I made a mistake and got UnixSE responses about backing out my
mistake before I did the install.



Questions:




  1. Why am I getting the message "Failed to synchronize cache for repo virtualbox"?


  2. Why am I getting the message "No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2"?


  3. Do I need to back anything out before I proceed with the install?


  4. How do I install VirtualBox in Fedora 29.











share|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    The only Fedora 29 specific instructions that I found are at this link:
    https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-guest-additions-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



    Since that link is apparently focused on guest additions, I decided to ignore it.



    A year ago, I successfully installed VirtualBox in Fedora 26 by following instructions that were similar to the following link: https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



    Since I couldn't find corresponding instructions specifically for Fedora 29, I
    attempted to follow the same instructions. First, I executed the following
    command:



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


    Although the command appeared to complete normally, it did show the following message:



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


    I then executed:



    dnf install VirtualBox-5.2


    Results:



    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


    I am not sure if this is relevant, but just out of curiosity, I 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


    It seems as if Fedora 29 (complete install, not upgrade) is installing some
    VirtualBox Guest-Addition rpm's. I will post a separate query re what I should do to install guest additions once I've got VirtualBox installed. I mention it in this posting only as it might relate to my specific problem.



    Similarly, I'm unsure whether the following link is relevant:
    VirtualBox failed to install in Fedora 26



    In that link, I made a mistake and got UnixSE responses about backing out my
    mistake before I did the install.



    Questions:




    1. Why am I getting the message "Failed to synchronize cache for repo virtualbox"?


    2. Why am I getting the message "No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2"?


    3. Do I need to back anything out before I proceed with the install?


    4. How do I install VirtualBox in Fedora 29.











    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      The only Fedora 29 specific instructions that I found are at this link:
      https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-guest-additions-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



      Since that link is apparently focused on guest additions, I decided to ignore it.



      A year ago, I successfully installed VirtualBox in Fedora 26 by following instructions that were similar to the following link: https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



      Since I couldn't find corresponding instructions specifically for Fedora 29, I
      attempted to follow the same instructions. First, I executed the following
      command:



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


      Although the command appeared to complete normally, it did show the following message:



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


      I then executed:



      dnf install VirtualBox-5.2


      Results:



      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


      I am not sure if this is relevant, but just out of curiosity, I 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


      It seems as if Fedora 29 (complete install, not upgrade) is installing some
      VirtualBox Guest-Addition rpm's. I will post a separate query re what I should do to install guest additions once I've got VirtualBox installed. I mention it in this posting only as it might relate to my specific problem.



      Similarly, I'm unsure whether the following link is relevant:
      VirtualBox failed to install in Fedora 26



      In that link, I made a mistake and got UnixSE responses about backing out my
      mistake before I did the install.



      Questions:




      1. Why am I getting the message "Failed to synchronize cache for repo virtualbox"?


      2. Why am I getting the message "No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2"?


      3. Do I need to back anything out before I proceed with the install?


      4. How do I install VirtualBox in Fedora 29.











      share|improve this question













      The only Fedora 29 specific instructions that I found are at this link:
      https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-guest-additions-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



      Since that link is apparently focused on guest additions, I decided to ignore it.



      A year ago, I successfully installed VirtualBox in Fedora 26 by following instructions that were similar to the following link: https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-virtualbox-with-yum-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/



      Since I couldn't find corresponding instructions specifically for Fedora 29, I
      attempted to follow the same instructions. First, I executed the following
      command:



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


      Although the command appeared to complete normally, it did show the following message:



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


      I then executed:



      dnf install VirtualBox-5.2


      Results:



      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


      I am not sure if this is relevant, but just out of curiosity, I 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


      It seems as if Fedora 29 (complete install, not upgrade) is installing some
      VirtualBox Guest-Addition rpm's. I will post a separate query re what I should do to install guest additions once I've got VirtualBox installed. I mention it in this posting only as it might relate to my specific problem.



      Similarly, I'm unsure whether the following link is relevant:
      VirtualBox failed to install in Fedora 26



      In that link, I made a mistake and got UnixSE responses about backing out my
      mistake before I did the install.



      Questions:




      1. Why am I getting the message "Failed to synchronize cache for repo virtualbox"?


      2. Why am I getting the message "No match for argument: VirtualBox-5.2"?


      3. Do I need to back anything out before I proceed with the install?


      4. How do I install VirtualBox in Fedora 29.








      fedora software-installation virtualbox






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 18 at 0:58









      user2661923

      179113




      179113






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Looking at the raw repo at http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/ they don't seem to support 29 yet, only up to F28. You should be able to edit the repo file and change $releasever to 28 and then dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 .






          share|improve this answer





















          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 1:14












          • Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
            – Aaron D. Marasco
            Nov 18 at 1:24












          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 3:04













          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',
          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%2f482441%2ffedora-29-virtualbox-installation-malfunction%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








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Looking at the raw repo at http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/ they don't seem to support 29 yet, only up to F28. You should be able to edit the repo file and change $releasever to 28 and then dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 .






          share|improve this answer





















          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 1:14












          • Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
            – Aaron D. Marasco
            Nov 18 at 1:24












          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 3:04

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Looking at the raw repo at http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/ they don't seem to support 29 yet, only up to F28. You should be able to edit the repo file and change $releasever to 28 and then dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 .






          share|improve this answer





















          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 1:14












          • Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
            – Aaron D. Marasco
            Nov 18 at 1:24












          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 3:04















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          Looking at the raw repo at http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/ they don't seem to support 29 yet, only up to F28. You should be able to edit the repo file and change $releasever to 28 and then dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 .






          share|improve this answer












          Looking at the raw repo at http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/ they don't seem to support 29 yet, only up to F28. You should be able to edit the repo file and change $releasever to 28 and then dnf install VirtualBox-5.2 .







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 18 at 1:03









          Aaron D. Marasco

          3,5581421




          3,5581421












          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 1:14












          • Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
            – Aaron D. Marasco
            Nov 18 at 1:24












          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 3:04




















          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 1:14












          • Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
            – Aaron D. Marasco
            Nov 18 at 1:24












          • @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
            – user2661923
            Nov 18 at 3:04


















          @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
          – user2661923
          Nov 18 at 1:14






          @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks for the analysis. Your approached worked but revealed an underlying problem. When I re-attempted dnf install VirtualBox-5.2, I got several error messages similar to Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libvpx.so.4()(64bit) needed by VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64. I will wait a couple of months and then re-try. It looks like your analysis answered my question 2. I also welcome an answer for question 1.
          – user2661923
          Nov 18 at 1:14














          Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
          – Aaron D. Marasco
          Nov 18 at 1:24






          Question 1 is because download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/29 is not a valid URL; it doesn't exist on the repo site. download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/28 is where I indicated you should point to. Some sources for your missing library can be found at rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/…
          – Aaron D. Marasco
          Nov 18 at 1:24














          @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
          – user2661923
          Nov 18 at 3:04






          @AaronDMarasco Aaron, thanks again. For others: Following Aaron's original answer, my re-try did in fact point to ../rpm/fedora/28, which is why the re-try got different errors. I suspect that it will be cleaner simply to wait a few months and then re-try.
          – user2661923
          Nov 18 at 3:04




















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482441%2ffedora-29-virtualbox-installation-malfunction%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

          List directoties down one level, excluding some named directories and files

          list processes belonging to a network namespace

          list systemd RuntimeDirectory mounts