Yes, after system installed on hard drive the same error.
But after upgrading boost* error is gone and packages normal installed.
пт, 15 мая 2020 г. в 00:33, Vascom <vascom2(a)gmail.com>:
>
> I just could reproduce it.
>
> Steps:
> 1. Run KDE spin F32 in virt-manager.
> 2. dnf install toolnix
>
> Result:
>
> mkvtoolnix x86_64 46.0.0-1.fc32 updates 5.2 M
> Installing dependencies:
> boost169-filesystem x86_64 1.69.0-6.fc32 fedora 53 k
> boost169-system x86_64 1.69.0-6.fc32 fedora 12 k
> fmt x86_64 6.2.1-1.fc32 updates 115 k
> libebml x86_64 1.3.10-2.fc32 fedora 87 k
> libmatroska x86_64 1.5.2-2.fc32 fedora 178 k
> pugixml x86_64 1.10-2.fc32 fedora 100 k
>
> ...
> Error: Transaction test error:
> file /usr/lib64/libboost_system.so.1.69.0 from install of
> boost169-system-1.69.0-6.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
> boost-system-1.69.0-15.fc32.x86_64
>
> So I think after installation result will be the same. May be need
> first dnf upgrade.
>
> пт, 15 мая 2020 г. в 00:10, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz>:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 May 2020 20:08:07 -0000
> > "Denis Arnaud" <denis.arnaud_fedora(a)m4x.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > No one try to install it now. New boost will be in F33 only.
> > > >
> > > > But if boost not installed in system and user want install for
> > > > example libreoffice he will get this error and can't install any
> > > > package requires boost.
> > > >
> > > > boost169 must be removed from F32 repos at all.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 14 мая 2020 г. в 22:19, Samuel Sieb
<samuel(a)sieb.net>:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/14/20 10:49 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > > > > The boost169 compatibility package conflicts with the
regular
> > > > > > boost on Fedora 32. Both packages provides the same
libraries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Error: Transaction test error:
> > > > > > file /usr/lib64/libboost_system.so.1.69.0 from install
of
> > > > > > boost169-system-1.69.0-6.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file
from
> > > > > > package boost-system-1.69.0-15.fc32.x86_64
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the point of having a compatibility package for the
same
> > > > > version as the regular one? I'm guessing that means
they're in
> > > > > the process of preparing a new release, but why are you trying
to
> > > > > install it now? _______________________________________________
> > > > > devel mailing list --
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > > >
devel-leave(a)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
> > > > No one try to install it now. New boost will be in F33 only.
> > > >
> > > > But if boost not installed in system and user want install for
> > > > example libreoffice he will get this error and can't install any
> > > > package requires boost.
> > > >
> > > > boost169 must be removed from F32 repos at all.
> > > >
> > > > чт, 14 мая 2020 г. в 22:19, Samuel Sieb
<samuel(a)sieb.net>:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/14/20 10:49 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > > > > The boost169 compatibility package conflicts with the
regular
> > > > > > boost on Fedora 32. Both packages provides the same
libraries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Error: Transaction test error:
> > > > > > file /usr/lib64/libboost_system.so.1.69.0 from install
of
> > > > > > boost169-system-1.69.0-6.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file
from
> > > > > > package boost-system-1.69.0-15.fc32.x86_64
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the point of having a compatibility package for the
same
> > > > > version as the regular one? I'm guessing that means
they're in
> > > > > the process of preparing a new release, but why are you trying
to
> > > > > install it now? _______________________________________________
> > > > > devel mailing list --
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > > > >
devel-leave(a)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
> > > Yes, boost169 should never have ended up in Fedora 32 in the first
> > > place (blame on me, sorry). The thing is that we can no longer block
> > > it:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9455
> >
> > I think an update of fedora-obsolete-packages could "virtually"
remove
> > boost169, without touching boost itself.
> >
> >
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)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