Re: Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstamrnb.so from install of gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.1-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file from package gstreamer1-plugins-ug

[Reon Beon via devel]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6605
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstamrnb.so from install of gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.1-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file from package gstreamer1-plugins-ug

[Samuel Sieb]

On 3/16/23 19:14, Reon Beon via devel wrote:

Error: Transaction test error:
   file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstamrnb.so from install of 
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.1-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file from 
package gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1:1.22.0-1.fc39.x86_64
   file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstamrwbdec.so from install of 
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.22.1-2.fc39.x86_64 conflicts with file from 
package gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1:1.22.0-1.fc39.x86_64


"ugly-free" is from Fedora and "ugly" is from rpmfusion.  That looks 
like a codec has been cleared to move to the free version, but the 
rpmfusion package hasn't been updated yet.


From the changelog:
* Wed Mar 15 2023 Wim Taymans  - 1.22.1-2
- Rebuild for new AMR plugins.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Error: transaction test error

[Petr Pisar]

V Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:06:27PM +0100, Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:01 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, but is is worth the effort? I could open a bunch of bugs, but
> > I don't want to do this if nobody wants to look at them anyway.
> 
> You might be able to save yourself from downloading and installing all
> packages manually, by querying repository metadata for file providers:
> 
> for package in repository:
> for file in package:
> for provider in whatprovides(file):
> if provider != package:
> print "Path {file} is provided by both {package} and
> {provider}."
> 
> Though you'd probably get a bunch of false positives, for things like
> shared directory ownership. Not sure if you could filter that out
> somehow.
> 
You have the tested package locally, so you know whether a file name is
a directory or not and omit the directories from testing. (There is still
a possibility of clashing a local direcotory and a remote file, but I guess
that will be close to zero.)

Of course a good test when it discovers a same-named file, before reporting an
error, it should also check whether the Conflicts has already been declared
(locally or remotely).

(And the test also needs to skip a previous version of the tested package :)

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Error: transaction test error

[Fabio Valentini]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:01 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:19:18PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
> > napsal(a):
> > > can deal with that. But if they having conflicting files with
> > > declaring Conflicts, this is only detected after packages have been
> > > downloaded and results in a failed transaction and is generally bad UX.
> >
> > s/with/without/ ?
>
> Oops, yes.
>
> > > Recently I was installing a bunch of packages for the the "package notes"
> > > tests, and I was surprised how many such packages we have:
> > >
> > > Error: Transaction test error:
> > >   file /usr/bin/arping from install of 
> > > golang-github-j-keck-arping-1.0.2-2.fc36.x86_64 conflicts with file from 
> > > package iputils-20211215-2.fc36.x86_64
> > >   file /usr/bin/cbc from install of 
> > > libcouchbase-tools-3.2.2-1.fc36.x86_64 conflicts with file from package 
> > > coin-or-Cbc-2.10.5-8.fc36.x86_64
> > [...]
> > > Such conflicts lead to subpar user experience… Should we make an effort 
> > > to clean this
> > > up?
> >
> > We could add a new implicit CI test to check for the conflicting files. A 
> > test
> > similar to fedora-ci.koji-build.installability.functional. That would inform
> > packagers that their new build is missing the explicit Conflicts.
>
> It's not trivial to do right now, because you actually need to
> download all the packages to see the issue. (Though file names are
> available in the metadata files, e.g. dnf install /some/path works,
> so I guess it could be done without downloading packages theoretically.)
>
> > > Add Conflicts between those packages?
> >
> > Yes. It's mandated by the guidelines
> > .
>
> Yeah, but is is worth the effort? I could open a bunch of bugs, but
> I don't want to do this if nobody wants to look at them anyway.

You might be able to save yourself from downloading and installing all
packages manually, by querying repository metadata for file providers:

for package in repository:
for file in package:
for provider in whatprovides(file):
if provider != package:
print "Path {file} is provided by both {package} and
{provider}."

Though you'd probably get a bunch of false positives, for things like
shared directory ownership. Not sure if you could filter that out
somehow.

Fabio
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Error: transaction test error

[Artur Frenszek-Iwicki]

> file /usr/bin/icat from install of sleuthkit-4.11.1-1.fc36.x86_64 conflicts 
> with file from package icat-0.5-10.fc36.x86_64
> file /usr/share/man/man1/icat.1.gz from install of 
> sleuthkit-4.11.1-1.fc36.x86_64 conflicts with file from package 
> icat-0.5-10.fc36.x86_64
icat is one of my packages. sleuthkit has been in Fedora for 13 years now,
and "icat" has been part of the package from the very beginning, so this 
conflict is on me.
(And whoever reviewed my package review request, I guess.)

I'll add the Conflicts: tag and rebuild the package later today.
A.FI.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Error: transaction test error

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:19:18PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
> napsal(a):
> > can deal with that. But if they having conflicting files with
> > declaring Conflicts, this is only detected after packages have been
> > downloaded and results in a failed transaction and is generally bad UX.
> 
> s/with/without/ ?

Oops, yes.

> > Recently I was installing a bunch of packages for the the "package notes"
> > tests, and I was surprised how many such packages we have:
> > 
> > Error: Transaction test error:
> >   file /usr/bin/arping from install of 
> > golang-github-j-keck-arping-1.0.2-2.fc36.x86_64 conflicts with file from 
> > package iputils-20211215-2.fc36.x86_64
> >   file /usr/bin/cbc from install of libcouchbase-tools-3.2.2-1.fc36.x86_64 
> > conflicts with file from package coin-or-Cbc-2.10.5-8.fc36.x86_64
> [...]
> > Such conflicts lead to subpar user experience… Should we make an effort to 
> > clean this
> > up?
> 
> We could add a new implicit CI test to check for the conflicting files. A test
> similar to fedora-ci.koji-build.installability.functional. That would inform
> packagers that their new build is missing the explicit Conflicts.

It's not trivial to do right now, because you actually need to
download all the packages to see the issue. (Though file names are
available in the metadata files, e.g. dnf install /some/path works,
so I guess it could be done without downloading packages theoretically.)

> > Add Conflicts between those packages?
> 
> Yes. It's mandated by the guidelines
> .

Yeah, but is is worth the effort? I could open a bunch of bugs, but
I don't want to do this if nobody wants to look at them anyway.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Error: transaction test error

[Petr Pisar]

V Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:19:18PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> can deal with that. But if they having conflicting files with
> declaring Conflicts, this is only detected after packages have been
> downloaded and results in a failed transaction and is generally bad UX.

s/with/without/ ?

> Recently I was installing a bunch of packages for the the "package notes"
> tests, and I was surprised how many such packages we have:
> 
> Error: Transaction test error:
>   file /usr/bin/arping from install of 
> golang-github-j-keck-arping-1.0.2-2.fc36.x86_64 conflicts with file from 
> package iputils-20211215-2.fc36.x86_64
>   file /usr/bin/cbc from install of libcouchbase-tools-3.2.2-1.fc36.x86_64 
> conflicts with file from package coin-or-Cbc-2.10.5-8.fc36.x86_64
[...]
> Such conflicts lead to subpar user experience… Should we make an effort to 
> clean this
> up?

We could add a new implicit CI test to check for the conflicting files. A test
similar to fedora-ci.koji-build.installability.functional. That would inform
packagers that their new build is missing the explicit Conflicts.

> Add Conflicts between those packages?

Yes. It's mandated by the guidelines
.

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure