On Fri, 2026-02-13 at 15:38 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 2/13/26 3:43 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > I ran 'dnf upgrade' this morning and got a bunch of proposed > > upgrades, > > one of which failed due to a missing public key (it was Chrome). > > See > > separate thread. > > > > The odd thing is that *none* of the upgrades applied, even things > > completely unrelated to Chrome. When I re-ran the upgrade and added > > '-- > > exclude google-chrome-stable', then it all worked. > > > > This looks like a regression. IIRC in the past dnf would have > > installed > > everything that didn't depend on the failing item. Am I mistaken? > > Any error in the checking will abort the entire transaction. > Otherwise, > it would have to go back and redo all the dependency checking again.
I don't recall it doing that before but I may be wrong. AFAIK it doesn't happen if some repo is inaccessible, which at least superficially would seem to be a comparable problem. poc -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
