Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
Maybe it should be stated explicitly that Qubes update tool or qubesctl is needed and just updating manually through vm or Qube Manager is not sufficient. Btw, the workaround can also be confirmed by updating manually through vm or Qubes Manager, dnf will then state that GPG signature check is enforced globally. On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 12:49:27 AM UTC+1 a...@qubes-os.org wrote: > On 3/19/21 4:35 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:42:23PM -0700, Andrew David Wong wrote: > >> On 3/19/21 3:12 PM, Vít Šesták wrote: > >>> It seems to have been fixed now. The dom0 updates have passed. The DomU > >>> Fedora updates have succeeded with updating the macros.qubes file, > which is > >>> supposingly the workaround by Qubes team. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Vít Šesták 'v6ak' > >>> > > > >> I now realize that we neglected to state, in the QSB, what the desired > >> result from updating Fedora-based TemplateVMs and StandaloneVMs should > be. I > >> presume this is it: > > > >> -- > >> ID: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes > >> Function: file.managed > >> Result: True > >> Comment: File /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes updated > >> Started: > >> Duration: > >> Changes: > >> -- > >> diff: > >> New file > >> -- > >> ID: dnf-makecache > >> Function: cmd.script > >> Result: True > >> Comment: DNF cache successfully created > >> Started: > >> Duration: > >> Changes: > >> -- > > > >> Marek or Demi, can you confirm? > > > > Yes this seems right (in subsequent runs, the > > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes state will not have "New file" > > comment, but will still have "Result: True"). > > Below you should also see a summary with "Failed: 0". > > > > Thanks, that is indeed the output I received. > > However, on a few update attempts, I saw this: > > Function: cmd.script > Result: False > Comment: Could not create DNF metadata cache > Started: > Duration: > Changes: > -- > ID: update > Function: pkg.uptodate > Result: False > Comment: One or more requisite failed: update.qubes-vm.dnf-makecache > Started: > Duration: > Changes: > -- > > Subsequent attempts were successful (had the expected output), though. > > -- > Andrew David Wong (Axon) > Community Manager, Qubes OS > https://www.qubes-os.org > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/b266984b-3775-45ad-a74e-869e65753e52n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
On 3/19/21 4:35 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:42:23PM -0700, Andrew David Wong wrote: On 3/19/21 3:12 PM, Vít Šesták wrote: It seems to have been fixed now. The dom0 updates have passed. The DomU Fedora updates have succeeded with updating the macros.qubes file, which is supposingly the workaround by Qubes team. Regards, Vít Šesták 'v6ak' I now realize that we neglected to state, in the QSB, what the desired result from updating Fedora-based TemplateVMs and StandaloneVMs should be. I presume this is it: -- ID: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes Function: file.managed Result: True Comment: File /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes updated Started: Duration: Changes: -- diff: New file -- ID: dnf-makecache Function: cmd.script Result: True Comment: DNF cache successfully created Started: Duration: Changes: -- Marek or Demi, can you confirm? Yes this seems right (in subsequent runs, the /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes state will not have "New file" comment, but will still have "Result: True"). Below you should also see a summary with "Failed: 0". Thanks, that is indeed the output I received. However, on a few update attempts, I saw this: Function: cmd.script Result: False Comment: Could not create DNF metadata cache Started: Duration: Changes: -- ID: update Function: pkg.uptodate Result: False Comment: One or more requisite failed: update.qubes-vm.dnf-makecache Started: Duration: Changes: -- Subsequent attempts were successful (had the expected output), though. -- Andrew David Wong (Axon) Community Manager, Qubes OS https://www.qubes-os.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/39c31626-3eb9-60b3-5d99-27fda10c0d2f%40qubes-os.org. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:42:23PM -0700, Andrew David Wong wrote: > On 3/19/21 3:12 PM, Vít Šesták wrote: > > It seems to have been fixed now. The dom0 updates have passed. The DomU > > Fedora updates have succeeded with updating the macros.qubes file, which is > > supposingly the workaround by Qubes team. > > > > Regards, > > Vít Šesták 'v6ak' > > > > I now realize that we neglected to state, in the QSB, what the desired > result from updating Fedora-based TemplateVMs and StandaloneVMs should be. I > presume this is it: > > -- > ID: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes > Function: file.managed > Result: True >Comment: File /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes updated >Started: > Duration: >Changes: > -- > diff: > New file > -- > ID: dnf-makecache > Function: cmd.script > Result: True >Comment: DNF cache successfully created >Started: > Duration: >Changes: > -- > > Marek or Demi, can you confirm? Yes this seems right (in subsequent runs, the /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes state will not have "New file" comment, but will still have "Result: True"). Below you should also see a summary with "Failed: 0". - -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhrpukzGPukRmQqkK24/THMrX1ywFAmBVNVIACgkQ24/THMrX 1yzSRAf+MghA3DpM18Rqikkcc3Qg9+ZEZsvXNr4cc+ZYVFLUWfdSQyVzNzMUcmPl Y5Y6TGAjbTIJ0ni87FPMws+TeIa3SuYWwhzMk0c1NQhajOznQ9/k6HaLb3M/fpLn mJB9KKgOtZntt3FsvysYfDPHiZ5udQVlXdD3pabOlpfZaO1+VUdwZoDlmVUdAGxa 6PZX/edN3ENuoc6FA50PNqswHZ0eSnLuh/Dyx9DcRcz/8lDn/Zs3q6u/D2WJojn0 gIs9U1ZH2u/y7jh1nbYpYpWrrLe9+gVHe7KyPg7YiggFxfz+sQMFFLlj4xA+sd4N M5u12yktJEblUoHinSIFBHSXoqQR1Q== =CvtC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/YFU1UsLe0C8xMuxF%40mail-itl.
Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
Thank you, it seems that my update is successful. On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 11:42:41 PM UTC+1 a...@qubes-os.org wrote: > P.S. -- Please avoid top-posting, Vít. > Sorry for that, I sometimes forget to remove the quoted text. Anyway, I top post only if the quoted text is not important, i.e. when I don't quote selectively. Regards, Vít Šesták 'v6ak' -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/faf25ad4-3066-4913-b1cf-9c4d35b6bb97n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
On 3/19/21 3:12 PM, Vít Šesták wrote: It seems to have been fixed now. The dom0 updates have passed. The DomU Fedora updates have succeeded with updating the macros.qubes file, which is supposingly the workaround by Qubes team. Regards, Vít Šesták 'v6ak' I now realize that we neglected to state, in the QSB, what the desired result from updating Fedora-based TemplateVMs and StandaloneVMs should be. I presume this is it: -- ID: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes Function: file.managed Result: True Comment: File /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.qubes updated Started: Duration: Changes: -- diff: New file -- ID: dnf-makecache Function: cmd.script Result: True Comment: DNF cache successfully created Started: Duration: Changes: -- Marek or Demi, can you confirm? P.S. -- Please avoid top-posting, Vít. On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 1:59:48 PM UTC+1 a...@qubes-os.org wrote: On 3/19/21 4:41 AM, Vít Šesták wrote: Hi, I've tried to install the updates. Even after removing systemtap and when using --clean, I am unable to install it. IIUC, I am trying to install it too soon: $ sudo qubes-dom0-update --enablerepo=qubes-dom0-security-testing --clean Using sys-firewall as UpdateVM to download updates for Dom0; this may take some time... 40 files removed Fedora 25 - x86_64 - Updates 272 kB/s | 24 MB 01:29 Fedora 25 - x86_64 3.6 MB/s | 50 MB 00:14 Qubes Dom0 Repository (updates) 1.3 MB/s | 1.3 MB 00:01 Qubes Dom0 Repository (security-testing) 1.5 MB/s | 3.0 MB 00:02 determining the fastest mirror (14 hosts).. done.-- B/s | 0 B --:-- ETA Qubes Templates repository 2.2 kB/s | 5.9 kB 00:02 Error: Problem 1: problem with installed package satyr-0.21-2.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package satyr-0.21-2.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by satyr-0.21-2.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 2: problem with installed package qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.28-1.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.28-1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides rpm >= 4.14 needed by qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.29-1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 3: problem with installed package python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 4: problem with installed package libsolv-0.6.29-2.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package libsolv-0.6.29-2.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by libsolv-0.6.29-2.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 5: problem with installed package hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 6: problem with installed package drpm-0.3.0-3.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package drpm-0.3.0-3.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by drpm-0.3.0-3.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by drpm-0.3.0-3.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 7: problem with installed package deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 8: problem with installed package createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 9: problem with installed package createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 10: problem with installed package PackageKit-1.1.5-1.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package PackageKit-1.1.5-1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by PackageKit-1.1.5-1.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by PackageKit-1.1.5-1.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 11: problem with installed package python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package
Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
It seems to have been fixed now. The dom0 updates have passed. The DomU Fedora updates have succeeded with updating the macros.qubes file, which is supposingly the workaround by Qubes team. Regards, Vít Šesták 'v6ak' On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 1:59:48 PM UTC+1 a...@qubes-os.org wrote: > On 3/19/21 4:41 AM, Vít Šesták wrote: > > Hi, I've tried to install the updates. Even after removing systemtap and > > when using --clean, I am unable to install it. IIUC, I am trying to > install > > it too soon: > > > > $ sudo qubes-dom0-update --enablerepo=qubes-dom0-security-testing --clean > > Using sys-firewall as UpdateVM to download updates for Dom0; this may > take > > some time... > > 40 files removed > > Fedora 25 - x86_64 - Updates 272 kB/s | 24 MB > > 01:29 > > Fedora 25 - x86_64 3.6 MB/s | 50 MB > > 00:14 > > Qubes Dom0 Repository (updates) 1.3 MB/s | 1.3 MB > > 00:01 > > Qubes Dom0 Repository (security-testing) 1.5 MB/s | 3.0 MB > > 00:02 > > determining the fastest mirror (14 hosts).. done.-- B/s | 0 B --:-- > > ETA > > Qubes Templates repository 2.2 kB/s | 5.9 kB > > 00:02 > > Error: > > Problem 1: problem with installed package satyr-0.21-2.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > satyr-0.21-2.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > satyr-0.21-2.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 2: problem with installed package > > qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.28-1.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.28-1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides rpm >= 4.14 needed by > > qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.29-1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 3: problem with installed package > > python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 4: problem with installed package libsolv-0.6.29-2.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > libsolv-0.6.29-2.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > libsolv-0.6.29-2.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 5: problem with installed package hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 6: problem with installed package drpm-0.3.0-3.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > drpm-0.3.0-3.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > drpm-0.3.0-3.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > drpm-0.3.0-3.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 7: problem with installed package deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 8: problem with installed package > > createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 9: problem with installed package > createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 10: problem with installed package PackageKit-1.1.5-1.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > PackageKit-1.1.5-1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > PackageKit-1.1.5-1.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > PackageKit-1.1.5-1.1.fc25.x86_64 > > Problem 11: problem with installed package > > python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 > > - package python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 requires deltarpm(x86-64) > > = 3.6-17.1.fc25, but none of the providers can be installed > > - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 > > - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by > > deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 > > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) > > > > Regards, > >
Re: [qubes-users] Re: QSB-067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities
On 3/19/21 4:41 AM, Vít Šesták wrote: Hi, I've tried to install the updates. Even after removing systemtap and when using --clean, I am unable to install it. IIUC, I am trying to install it too soon: $ sudo qubes-dom0-update --enablerepo=qubes-dom0-security-testing --clean Using sys-firewall as UpdateVM to download updates for Dom0; this may take some time... 40 files removed Fedora 25 - x86_64 - Updates272 kB/s | 24 MB 01:29 Fedora 25 - x86_64 3.6 MB/s | 50 MB 00:14 Qubes Dom0 Repository (updates) 1.3 MB/s | 1.3 MB 00:01 Qubes Dom0 Repository (security-testing)1.5 MB/s | 3.0 MB 00:02 determining the fastest mirror (14 hosts).. done.-- B/s | 0 B --:-- ETA Qubes Templates repository 2.2 kB/s | 5.9 kB 00:02 Error: Problem 1: problem with installed package satyr-0.21-2.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package satyr-0.21-2.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by satyr-0.21-2.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 2: problem with installed package qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.28-1.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.28-1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides rpm >= 4.14 needed by qubes-core-dom0-linux-4.0.29-1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 3: problem with installed package python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by python3-hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 4: problem with installed package libsolv-0.6.29-2.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package libsolv-0.6.29-2.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by libsolv-0.6.29-2.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 5: problem with installed package hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package hawkey-0.6.4-3.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by hawkey-0.6.4-3.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 6: problem with installed package drpm-0.3.0-3.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package drpm-0.3.0-3.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by drpm-0.3.0-3.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by drpm-0.3.0-3.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 7: problem with installed package deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 8: problem with installed package createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-libs-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 9: problem with installed package createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by createrepo_c-0.10.0-6.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 10: problem with installed package PackageKit-1.1.5-1.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package PackageKit-1.1.5-1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by PackageKit-1.1.5-1.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by PackageKit-1.1.5-1.1.fc25.x86_64 Problem 11: problem with installed package python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - cannot install the best update candidate for package python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.fc25.x86_64 - package python2-deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 requires deltarpm(x86-64) = 3.6-17.1.fc25, but none of the providers can be installed - nothing provides librpm.so.8()(64bit) needed by deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 - nothing provides librpmio.so.8()(64bit) needed by deltarpm-3.6-17.1.fc25.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) Regards, Vít Šesták 'v6ak' Yes, I'm seeing the same thing. I have already notified the team directly about this. On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 11:40:02 AM UTC+1 a...@qubes-os.org wrote: Dear Qubes Community, We have just published Qubes Security Bulletin (QSB) 067: Multiple RPM vulnerabilities. The text of this QSB is reproduced below. This QSB and its accompanying signatures will always be available in the Qubes Security Pack (qubes-secpack). View QSB-067 in the qubes-secpack:
