[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2018-08-06 Fedora QA Meeting
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow (today?), as no-one seemed to have anything urgent for the agenda in response to my other mail. So, I get to sleep in! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list -- test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@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/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XQFTE7RITNIAID2KHVZ6JPWPSYYIDZ6N/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On 08/05/2018 02:50 AM, Russel Winder wrote: I had an enforced "not able to upgrade Fedora Rawhide for too long" period. On doing the updates, one of my four computers updated fine, the other three however got into problems. They are now in a state where "dnf check-updates" reports a number of obsoletes, but "dnf upgrade" says nothing to do, and "dnf check" reports 2000+ duplicates. I am certain someone in the past told me how to get out of this as I am fairly sure I had a not dissimilar situation early last year. However, I cannot find the email that I am sure I kept somewhere. I have no idea why you have so many duplicates. That usually happens when the update process gets interrupted part way through. Try running "dnf distro-sync". ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/7L5IIVAE65JBWDVT2B3CJUKXNQXUGERV/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 19:59:55 +0100 Russel Winder wrote: > By judicious used of dnf, grep, and awk, I am now down to: > > [root@anglides ~]# dnf check-update > Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:28 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018 > 19:57:06 BST. > [root@anglides ~]# dnf check > sudo-1.8.23-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with > sudo-1.8.23-3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate > with systemd-239-3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-container-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is > a duplicate with systemd- container-239-3.fc29.x86_64 > systemd-devel-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-devel-239- > 3.fc29.x86_64 > systemd-libs-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-libs-239- > 3.fc29.x86_64 > systemd-pam-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-pam-239- > 3.fc29.x86_64 > systemd-udev-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-udev-239- > 3.fc29.x86_64 > Error: Check discovered 7 problem(s) > > but I have no idea if stuff is actually internally self consistent. > You can, of course, use rpm directly to force install of these rpms. But the fact that this is such a large problem leads me to think there is a bug in some fundamental part of the update chain. As you say, there is no way to know if things are consistent at this point. Would the replacements function as well as the originals if you did force install them? If you are experimenting on only one system, and you do go the force install route, you might want to hold off on updating the other systems for a while to see if this is fixed in newer updates. There must be other people experiencing this problem. Really strange. ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/27IGKAYAZEFLIFESSED3DLCOCLP4XAFL/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
By judicious used of dnf, grep, and awk, I am now down to: [root@anglides ~]# dnf check-update Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:28 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018 19:57:06 BST. [root@anglides ~]# dnf check sudo-1.8.23-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with sudo-1.8.23-3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-239-3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-container-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd- container-239-3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-devel-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-devel-239- 3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-libs-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-libs-239- 3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-pam-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-pam-239- 3.fc29.x86_64 systemd-udev-239-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with systemd-udev-239- 3.fc29.x86_64 Error: Check discovered 7 problem(s) but I have no idea if stuff is actually internally self consistent. -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JA62ZTXKKNPTUOEBPYWYMHS43I52CIRI/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
Except of course that the packages sudo, systemd, and systemd-udev are protected and you cannot do "dnf remove" on them even if you are removing a duplicate :-( On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 19:23 +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 18:48 +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > > > > […] > > I tried "dnf remove --duplicates" but that downloaded 2.3GB and > > then > > failed to do anything due to dependency failures. > > > > Pragmatically I am not sure can try your suggestion as actually > > there > > are 2242 problem packages not just three. :-( > > On the other hand it seems that the output of "dnf check" can be > piped > through "grep 'is a duplicate with'" and awk to select the first > column > which is the name of the package that is being replaced so it can go > into a "xargs dnf remove" assuming dnf can take 2000+ arguments. > > I had assumed this is what "dnf remove --duplicates" would do, but it > doesn't. > -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4PNQT3SYG3TKOYFELXARRTDPNX4ZOYPB/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 18:48 +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > […] > I tried "dnf remove --duplicates" but that downloaded 2.3GB and then > failed to do anything due to dependency failures. > > Pragmatically I am not sure can try your suggestion as actually there > are 2242 problem packages not just three. :-( On the other hand it seems that the output of "dnf check" can be piped through "grep 'is a duplicate with'" and awk to select the first column which is the name of the package that is being replaced so it can go into a "xargs dnf remove" assuming dnf can take 2000+ arguments. I had assumed this is what "dnf remove --duplicates" would do, but it doesn't. -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ND5WS4W4EPQNFQTR23ADBZGD2COG4USA/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 10:22 -0700, stan wrote: […] > > I recently saw this with a package in F28. This shouldn't happen, as > far as I know, because the later package is replacing the earlier > package and dnf should know that. My take is that some change to the > package gives the later version a different signature, so that dnf > actually thinks they are different packages, but that is just a > guess. > I resolved the issue by running, for your case, > dnf -x zsh -x zvbi -x zziplib upgrade > After that completed, I did > dnf remove zsh zvbi zziplib > dnf install zsh zvbi zziplib > In my case, the package was a leaf package, so this was trivial. If > your packages have a lot of dependencies, all those will be taken out > by the remove, and will have to be installed along with zsh, zvbi, > and > zziplib. Some of them might not be available for the new version. I tried "dnf remove --duplicates" but that downloaded 2.3GB and then failed to do anything due to dependency failures. Pragmatically I am not sure can try your suggestion as actually there are 2242 problem packages not just three. :-( -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IH5UJD6LLDOYYXCXVH52G7SEZAQC7K6S/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 16:15:19 +0100 Russel Winder wrote: [snip] > [root@anglides ~]# dnf upgrade --best > Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:41 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018 > 16:10:08 BST. > Dependencies resolved. > Nothing to do. > Complete! > > [root@anglides ~]# dnf check > … > zsh-5.5.1-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with zsh-5.5.1-2.fc29.x86_64 > zvbi-0.2.35-5.fc28.x86_64 is a duplicate with > zvbi-0.2.35-6.fc29.x86_64 zziplib-0.13.68-2.fc29.x86_64 is a > duplicate with zziplib-0.13.69- 1.fc29.x86_64 > Error: Check discovered 2242 problem(s) I recently saw this with a package in F28. This shouldn't happen, as far as I know, because the later package is replacing the earlier package and dnf should know that. My take is that some change to the package gives the later version a different signature, so that dnf actually thinks they are different packages, but that is just a guess. I resolved the issue by running, for your case, dnf -x zsh -x zvbi -x zziplib upgrade After that completed, I did dnf remove zsh zvbi zziplib dnf install zsh zvbi zziplib In my case, the package was a leaf package, so this was trivial. If your packages have a lot of dependencies, all those will be taken out by the remove, and will have to be installed along with zsh, zvbi, and zziplib. Some of them might not be available for the new version. ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WX53XF6AJ7M5BBVFFY6TGA4TTLUYQUCC/
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 06:23 -0700, stan wrote: > […] > > I think you want to see what the issues are. Do > dnf --best update 2> dnf_errors.txt > and look at the output file. It is kind of like a log jam. There > are > probably a few key packages that are orphaned, and they depend on > older > libraries that are common to many other packages. Once they are > removed, the logjam will resolve itself. Using this technique allows > you to manually determine whether the updates are more important than > a > package you have installed that is blocking the update. There are no errors! [root@anglides ~]# dnf check-update --refresh bintray--pony-language-pony-stable-rpm 8.0 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 bintray--pony-language-ponyc-rpm7.7 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 Crystal 1.9 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:01 Fedora - Modular Rawhide - Developmental packag 37 kB/s | 20 kB 00:00 Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for t 24 kB/s | 2.3 kB 00:00 local 110 kB/s | 3.0 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora Rawhide - Free 83 kB/s | 11 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora Rawhide - Nonfree 27 kB/s | 11 kB 00:00 Vivaldi Browser 82 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018 16:10:08 BST. Obsoleting Packages grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 46.fc29 @rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 46.fc29 rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools-efi.x86_64 1:2.02- 46.fc29 @rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools-efi.x86_64 1:2.02- 46.fc29 rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools-extra.x86_641:2.02- 46.fc29 @rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools-extra.x86_641:2.02- 46.fc29 rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools-minimal.x86_64 1:2.02- 46.fc29 @rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System grub2-tools-minimal.x86_64 1:2.02- 46.fc29 rawhide grub2-tools.x86_64 1:2.02- 37.fc29 @System libmodulemd.i6861.6.1- 2.fc29rawhide python2-modulemd.noarch 1.3.3- 2.fc29@System libmodulemd.x86_64 1.6.1- 2.fc29@rawhide python2-modulemd.noarch 1.3.3- 2.fc29@System libmodulemd.x86_64 1.6.1- 2.fc29rawhide python2-modulemd.noarch 1.3.3- 2.fc29@System nss-pem.x86_64 1.0.3- 10.fc29 @rawhide nss-pem.x86_64 1.0.3- 9.fc29@System nss-pem.x86_64 1.0.3- 10.fc29 rawhide nss-pem.x86_64 1.0.3- 9.fc29@System redhat-lsb-printing.i6864.1- 45.fc29 rawhide redhat-lsb-printing.x86_64 4.1- 44.fc28 @System redhat-lsb-printing.x86_64 4.1- 45.fc29 @rawhide redhat-lsb-printing.x86_64 4.1- 44.fc28 @System redhat-lsb-printing.x86_64 4.1- 45.fc29 rawhide redhat-lsb-printing.x86_64 4.1- 44.fc28 @System wireless-regdb.noarch 2018.05.31- 3.fc29 rawhide crda.x86_64 3.18_2018.05.31- 1.fc29 @System [root@anglides ~]# dnf upgrade --best Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:41 ago on Sun 05 Aug 2018 16:10:08 BST. Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete! [root@anglides ~]# dnf check … zsh-5.5.1-1.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with zsh-5.5.1-2.fc29.x86_64 zvbi-0.2.35-5.fc28.x86_64 is a duplicate with zvbi-0.2.35-6.fc29.x86_64 zziplib-0.13.68-2.fc29.x86_64 is a duplicate with zziplib-0.13.69- 1.fc29.x86_64 Error: Check discovered 2242 problem(s) […] -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Duplicates and obsoletes problem
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 10:50:09 +0100 Russel Winder wrote: > Hi, > > I had an enforced "not able to upgrade Fedora Rawhide for too long" > period. On doing the updates, one of my four computers updated fine, > the other three however got into problems. They are now in a state > where "dnf check-updates" reports a number of obsoletes, but "dnf > upgrade" says nothing to do, and "dnf check" reports 2000+ > duplicates. I am certain someone in the past told me how to get out > of this as I am fairly sure I had a not dissimilar situation early > last year. However, I cannot find the email that I am sure I kept > somewhere. > > In desperation I tried "dnf remove --duplicates" and after > downloading 2.3GB it reports large numbers of dependency fails and > does nothing. > > I am confident there must be a way of solving this short of > re-installation, hopefully someone knows the magic I need to fix > these three computers. I think you want to see what the issues are. Do dnf --best update 2> dnf_errors.txt and look at the output file. It is kind of like a log jam. There are probably a few key packages that are orphaned, and they depend on older libraries that are common to many other packages. Once they are removed, the logjam will resolve itself. Using this technique allows you to manually determine whether the updates are more important than a package you have installed that is blocking the update. If you use dnf --best --allowerasing update it will remove anything that blocks updates, but that can be a lot of packages, some of which you might want to keep. You can use the dnf logs in /var/log to re-install packages that have been removed that you want to still have installed. Sometimes this fails because a version that works with the updated libraries is not available, though. ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WRPAZG6OUJFKOTDPZRWSQ5RR5FULLDFS/
Re: Broken dnf from 06-30-2018
On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 09:06 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 07/13/2018 07:23 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > > PS Is it correct that dnf works fine without the history database, and > > seems not to recreate it? > > You will have lost your past history of dnf transactions. The next time > you install, update, or remove something, it should create it again. Apologies for the delay in responding. It seems the files I deleted in /var/lib/dnf/history/ have not been recreated. There is a /var/lib/dnf/history.sqlite that is being updated. It seems the file I deleted is just ancient history that had the wrong schema. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t:+44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m:+44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DTGNHN4YEJXJ74HJOP2HFGCW7KFC5X3U/
Duplicates and obsoletes problem
Hi, I had an enforced "not able to upgrade Fedora Rawhide for too long" period. On doing the updates, one of my four computers updated fine, the other three however got into problems. They are now in a state where "dnf check-updates" reports a number of obsoletes, but "dnf upgrade" says nothing to do, and "dnf check" reports 2000+ duplicates. I am certain someone in the past told me how to get out of this as I am fairly sure I had a not dissimilar situation early last year. However, I cannot find the email that I am sure I kept somewhere. In desperation I tried "dnf remove --duplicates" and after downloading 2.3GB it reports large numbers of dependency fails and does nothing. I am confident there must be a way of solving this short of re-installation, hopefully someone knows the magic I need to fix these three computers. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t:+44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m:+44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UWUKP62T2HRBNTLS7XDGRPEFM7VBUIXG/
