----------------- $ cat /etc/os-release NAME=Fedora VERSION="29.20181129.0 (Workstation Edition)" ID=fedora VERSION_ID=29 PLATFORM_ID="platform:f29" PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 29.20181129.0 (Workstation Edition)" ---------------------------------------
now upgrading:
--------------------------------------
# rpm-ostree upgrade 1 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 569 B transferred in 1 seconds Checking out tree 33b20cd... done Enabled rpm-md repositories: updates fedora yarn rpm-fusion rpm-md repo 'updates' (cached); generated: 2018-12-04T02:37:23Z rpm-md repo 'fedora' (cached); generated: 2018-10-24T22:20:15Z rpm-md repo 'yarn' (cached); generated: 2018-11-07T20:05:15Z rpm-md repo 'rpm-fusion' (cached); generated: 2018-10-23T11:05:19Z Importing metadata [=============] 100% Resolving dependencies... Forbidden base package replacements: libdnf 0.22.3-1.fc29 -> 0.22.0-8.fc29 (updates) failed error: Some base packages would be replaced
------------------------------------------- $ dnf list installed | grep libdnf 568:libdnf.x86_64 0.22.0-8.fc29 @System
-------------------------------
I can't upgrade neither install any new package. How can I solve this libdnf dependency?
TY for help
On 12/4/18 5:11 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
$ cat /etc/os-release NAME=Fedora VERSION="29.20181129.0 (Workstation Edition)" ID=fedora VERSION_ID=29 PLATFORM_ID="platform:f29" PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 29.20181129.0 (Workstation Edition)"
now upgrading:
# rpm-ostree upgrade 1 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 569 B transferred in 1 seconds Checking out tree 33b20cd... done Enabled rpm-md repositories: updates fedora yarn rpm-fusion rpm-md repo 'updates' (cached); generated: 2018-12-04T02:37:23Z rpm-md repo 'fedora' (cached); generated: 2018-10-24T22:20:15Z rpm-md repo 'yarn' (cached); generated: 2018-11-07T20:05:15Z rpm-md repo 'rpm-fusion' (cached); generated: 2018-10-23T11:05:19Z Importing metadata [=============] 100% Resolving dependencies... Forbidden base package replacements: libdnf 0.22.3-1.fc29 -> 0.22.0-8.fc29 (updates) failed error: Some base packages would be replaced
I saw this over the weekend but didn't have a lot of extra time to investigate. My theory here is that one of your layered packages (can you give the output of `rpm-ostree status`?) contains a package that depends on the newer libdnf. This should not happen but I suspect an rpm that depends on the newer libdnf made it into the updates repo before the newer libdnf made it into the updates repo.
On a side note I also found that my local installation of silverblue contains podman-0.11.1-1.gita4adfe5.fc29.x86_64, which, according to bodhi, isn't in updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=podman
So it's possible either there are some issues with our repos or our silverblue composes might be pulling wrong content somehow.
And... After a little investigation I can see there is some different content between the atomic host updates compose and the silverblue compose:
``` [dustymabe@media fedora-ostree-repo-mirror]$ ostree log onerepo:fedora/29/x86_64/silverblue | head -n 5 commit 33b20cd7f31286861c7f7cdd78fe6211d76f2a1683141ed78290bc990ce64a52 ContentChecksum: cd3e6a7624f4638a8627032e3c9e7cb21cfb898456e1e7efad698eb194b2db8d Date: 2018-12-04 03:43:35 +0000 Version: 29.20181204.0 (no subject) [dustymabe@media fedora-ostree-repo-mirror]$ ostree log onerepo:fedora/29/x86_64/updates/atomic-host | head -n 5 commit f6086b9fff20af1f4b1a9c172191026a56dd36342933da9344b38004fe4dd758 ContentChecksum: db363011cbbe8a5e3796cdaecb0ff47f64f5ac931fca7d4fcf92027c25a262a6 Date: 2018-12-04 00:57:30 +0000 Version: 29.20181204.0 (no subject) [dustymabe@media fedora-ostree-repo-mirror]$ [dustymabe@media fedora-ostree-repo-mirror]$ rpm-ostree --repo=./ db diff f6086b9fff20af1f4b1a9c172191026a56dd36342933da9344b38004fe4dd758 33b20cd7f31286861c7f7cdd78fe6211d76f2a1683141ed78290bc990ce64a52 ostree diff commit old: f6086b9fff20af1f4b1a9c172191026a56dd36342933da9344b38004fe4dd758 ostree diff commit new: 33b20cd7f31286861c7f7cdd78fe6211d76f2a1683141ed78290bc990ce64a52 Upgraded: NetworkManager 1:1.12.4-2.fc29 -> 1:1.12.6-1.fc29 NetworkManager-libnm 1:1.12.4-2.fc29 -> 1:1.12.6-1.fc29 cryptsetup 2.0.5-1.fc29 -> 2.0.6-1.fc29 cryptsetup-libs 2.0.5-1.fc29 -> 2.0.6-1.fc29 fedora-release 29-4 -> 29-5 fuse-overlayfs 0.1-5.dev.gitd40ac75.fc29 -> 0.1-6.dev.git3d48bf9.fc29 kernel 4.19.5-300.fc29 -> 4.19.6-300.fc29 kernel-core 4.19.5-300.fc29 -> 4.19.6-300.fc29 kernel-modules 4.19.5-300.fc29 -> 4.19.6-300.fc29 pam 1.3.1-8.fc29 -> 1.3.1-13.fc29 podman 1:0.10.1.3-4.gitdb08685.fc29 -> 1:0.11.1-1.gita4adfe5.fc29 runc 2:1.0.0-57.dev.git9e5aa74.fc29 -> 2:1.0.0-59.dev.gitccb5efd.fc29 Removed: ```
Looking at the commit timestamps from above and the timestamps from the compose logs it looks like the silverblue ref was written by the updates-testing compose [1] rather than the updates compose [2].
I will look at the configs and see if I can figure out where things are going wrong.
Dusty
[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/Fedora-29-updates-testing... [2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/Fedora-29-updates-2018120...
On 12/4/18 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
I will look at the configs and see if I can figure out where things are going wrong.
I think this a a regression is some of the new yaml parsing in pungi. I opened a bug to see https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/1092
The updates-testing runs are running right after the updates runs and overwriting the ref. For now we can disable updates-testing composes for silverblue so that it won't overwrite the updates run.
Here is a PR for that: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
Dusty
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:57 PM Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 12/4/18 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
I will look at the configs and see if I can figure out where things are
going wrong.
I think this a a regression is some of the new yaml parsing in pungi. I opened a bug to see https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/1092
The updates-testing runs are running right after the updates runs and overwriting the ref. For now we can disable updates-testing composes for silverblue so that it won't overwrite the updates run.
Here is a PR for that:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
Dusty
My issue has been solved and could upgrade
--------------------------------------------------- $ rpm-ostree upgrade 1 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 569 B transferred in 1 seconds Checking out tree 6b4bc8e... done Enabled rpm-md repositories: updates fedora yarn rpm-fusion rpm-md repo 'updates' (cached); generated: 2018-12-05T02:28:43Z rpm-md repo 'fedora' (cached); generated: 2018-10-24T22:20:15Z rpm-md repo 'yarn' (cached); generated: 2018-11-07T20:05:15Z rpm-md repo 'rpm-fusion' (cached); generated: 2018-10-23T11:05:19Z Importing metadata [=============] 100% Resolving dependencies... done No upgrade available. $ rpm-ostree status State: idle AutomaticUpdates: disabled Deployments: ● ostree://fedora-atomic-29:fedora/29/x86_64/silverblue Version: 29.20181205.0 (2018-12-05T01:01:39Z) BaseCommit: 6b4bc8e81acb50897c493154d09afb6f07da3b2d35a1811ab1f121c4447117c1 GPGSignature: Valid signature by 5A03B4DD8254ECA02FDA1637A20AA56B429476B4 LayeredPackages: byacc compat-ffmpeg28 dnf fedora-workstation-repositories ffmpeg ffmpeg-libs flex gcc git gnome-tweak-tool gstreamer1-libav gstreamer1-plugins-ugly httpie hugo kubernetes-client nano nodejs perl-AnyEvent-I3 python2-kobo-rpmlib python3-kobo-rpmlib snapd vim wmctrl zsh
ostree://fedora-atomic-29:fedora/29/x86_64/silverblue Version: 29.20181205.0 (2018-12-05T01:01:39Z) BaseCommit: 6b4bc8e81acb50897c493154d09afb6f07da3b2d35a1811ab1f121c4447117c1 GPGSignature: Valid signature by 5A03B4DD8254ECA02FDA1637A20AA56B429476B4 LayeredPackages: byacc compat-ffmpeg28 dnf fedora-workstation-repositories ffmpeg ffmpeg-libs flex gcc git gnome-tweak-tool gstreamer1-libav gstreamer1-plugins-ugly httpie hugo kubernetes-client nano nodejs perl-AnyEvent-I3 python2-kobo-rpmlib python3-kobo-rpmlib snapd vim wmctrl zsh -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/5/18 5:14 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:57 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty@dustymabe.com mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com> wrote:
On 12/4/18 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > I will look at the configs and see if I can figure out where things are going wrong. > I think this a a regression is some of the new yaml parsing in pungi. I opened a bug to see https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/1092 The updates-testing runs are running right after the updates runs and overwriting the ref. For now we can disable updates-testing composes for silverblue so that it won't overwrite the updates run. Here is a PR for that: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LGL6LPHSOPNKQUWGYHGZVSDOX466WHFH/ DustyMy issue has been solved and could upgrade
Yep. We put in a workaround yesterday. We should be good now. Sorry about that.
Dusty
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:13 PM Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 12/5/18 5:14 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:57 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty@dustymabe.com <mailto:
dusty@dustymabe.com>> wrote:
On 12/4/18 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > I will look at the configs and see if I can figure out wherethings are going wrong.
> I think this a a regression is some of the new yaml parsing inpungi. I opened a bug
to see https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/1092 The updates-testing runs are running right after the updates runsand overwriting the ref.
For now we can disable updates-testing composes for silverblue sothat it won't overwrite
the updates run. Here is a PR for that:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
DustyMy issue has been solved and could upgrade
Yep. We put in a workaround yesterday. We should be good now. Sorry about that.
Don't be sorry and be proud for your very quick action and for the good work you do with this wonderful distro.
Dusty _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/6/18 6:20 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:13 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty@dustymabe.com mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com> wrote:
On 12/5/18 5:14 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:57 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty@dustymabe.com <mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com> <mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com <mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com>>> wrote: > > > > On 12/4/18 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > > > I will look at the configs and see if I can figure out where things are going wrong. > > > > I think this a a regression is some of the new yaml parsing in pungi. I opened a bug > to see https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/1092 > > The updates-testing runs are running right after the updates runs and overwriting the ref. > For now we can disable updates-testing composes for silverblue so that it won't overwrite > the updates run. > > Here is a PR for that: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LGL6LPHSOPNKQUWGYHGZVSDOX466WHFH/ > > Dusty > > > My issue has been solved and could upgrade Yep. We put in a workaround yesterday. We should be good now. Sorry about that.Don't be sorry and be proud for your very quick action and for the good work you do with this wonderful distro.
Thanks! It's an incredible team of people that help pull it off. I'm thankful for everyone who contributes!
Dusty
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
arnaud gaboury -
Dusty Mabe