Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miroslav Suchý]

Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:

sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

If you get this prompt:

...
  Total download size: XXX M
  Is this ok [y/N]:

you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.

But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.

Thank you

Miroslav

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 10:22, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

Is "dnf system-upgrade" not recommended anymore?

Regards,
Dominik

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/28/19 11:08, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 10:22, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> Is "dnf system-upgrade" not recommended anymore?

It is. What Miroslav is asking is to just test dependency resolving
using a custom command (not to do an actual upgrade) and file bugs.

Kalev

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 28.02.2019 o 10:22, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.

Worth doing 'sudo dnf update' first as some of issues could be already
solved. Also check bugzilla before reporting.

[Neal Becker]

Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>   --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
Error: 
 Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 2: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 4: package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch requires python-
slip >= 0.2.21, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch
 Problem 5: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-
lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 6: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls = 
5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 7: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 
1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 8: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 Problem 9: package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with 
fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch
  - package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires rpmfusion-free-
release, but none of the providers can be installed
  - dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch
 Problem 10: package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum provided 
by yum-3.4.3-521.fc30.noarch
  - package yumex-3.0.17-2.fc23.noarch requires yum >= 3.2.23, but none of 
the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch
  - yum-3.4.3-518.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package yumex-3.0.17-2.fc23.noarch
 Problem 11: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.x86_64 conflicts with fedora-
release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires rpmfusion-free-
release, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package fedy-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires fedy-plugins, but none of the 
providers can be installed
  - dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package fedy-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages 
or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

[Tom London]

[root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
00:04
Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
00:08
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
Error:
 Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 2: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls =
5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
[root@localhost ~]#

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:34 AM Neal Becker  wrote:
> Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> > and try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> >   --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> > ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> >
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> > report it against appropriate package.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Miroslav
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> installed
> libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
>
> Problem 2: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common =
> 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
>
> Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
> release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
> fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
>
> Problem 4: package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch requires
> python-
> slip >= 0.2.21, but none of the providers can be installed
> python2-slip-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch
>
> Problem 5: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-
> lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
>
> Problem 6: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls
> =
> 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
>
> Problem 7: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
> > =
>
> 1, but none of the providers can be installed
> package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
>
> release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
> fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
>
> Problem 8: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires
> python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be
> installed
> problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
> python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
>
> distupgrade
> repository
> python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
>  Problem 9: package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with
> fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
> package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
>
> system-release(29),
> but none of the providers can be installed
> problem with installed package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch
> package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires rpmfusion-free-
>
> release, but none of the providers can be installed
> dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch
>
> Problem 10: package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum
> provided
> by yum-3.4.3-521.fc30.noarch
> package yumex-3.0.17-2.fc23.noarch requires yum >= 3.2.23, but none of
>
> the providers can be installed
> problem with installed package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch
> yum-3.4.3-518.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package yumex-3.0.17-2.fc23.noarch
>
> Problem 11: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
> release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
> package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.x86_64 conflicts with fedora-
>
> release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
> package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires rpmfusion-free-
>
> release, but none of the providers can be installed
> problem with installed package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.x86_64
> package fedy-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires fedy-plugins, but none of
>
> the
> providers can be installed
> dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package fedy-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch
>
> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
> packages
> or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Ingo Hoffmann]

$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
     [14:51:21]
[sudo] password for iweiss:
Copr repo for better_fonts owned by dawid
                                                     222  B/s | 341  B
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'dawid-better_fonts'
Docker CE Stable - x86_64
                                                     464  B/s | 577  B
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable'
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
                                                     183  B/s | 543  B
    00:02
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
                                                     1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB
    00:00
Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
 Userid     : "Fedora (30) "
 Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
 From       : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
                                                     1.2 kB/s | 5.1 kB
    00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64
                                                     534 kB/s | 2.4 MB
    00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates
                                                      63  B/s | 257  B
    00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates
                                                      65  B/s | 257  B
    00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates
                                                      66  B/s | 257  B
    00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates
                                                      66  B/s | 257  B
    00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64
                                                     6.2 MB/s |  61 MB
    00:09
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Test Updates
                                                     321 kB/s |  71 kB
    00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates-testing'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates
                                                      56 kB/s |  71 kB
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free
                                                      63 kB/s |  71 kB
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Test Updates
                                                      59 kB/s |  71 kB
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates
                                                      44 kB/s |  71 kB
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree
                                                      61 kB/s |  71 kB
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree'
tlp RPM packages
                                                     211  B/s | 242  B
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'tlp-updates'
tlp RPM packages
                                                     205  B/s | 234  B
    00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'tlp'
Ignoring repositories: dawid-better_fonts, docker-ce-stable,
rpmfusion-free-updates-testing, rpmfusion-free-updates,
rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing,
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree, tlp-updates, tlp
Error:
 Problem 1: package
chromium-libs-media-freeworld-71.0.3578.98-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
chromium-libs(x86-64) = 71.0.3578.98-1.fc29, but none of the providers
can be installed
  - chromium-libs-71.0.3578.98-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package
chromium-libs-media-freeworld-71.0.3578.98-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires
fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

[Richard Shaw]

I removed package problems that were obviously due to RPM Fusion not having
branched yet...

Ignoring repositories: local, hobbes1069-JS8Call, hobbes1069-NBEMS,
hobbes1069-WSJT, hobbes1069-mingw, rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free,
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree, virtualbox
Error:
 Problem 3: package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
gdal-libs(x86-64) = 2.3.2-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gdal-libs-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libproj.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - proj-4.9.3-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 5: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common =
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 6: package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonColorPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonComputationalGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonDataModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonExecutionModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonMathPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonMiscPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonSystemPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonTransformsPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersGeneralPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersSourcesPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersTexturePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkRenderingCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkRenderingFreeTypePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkRenderingLabelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - python2-vtk-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 9: package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
  - boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Problem 13: package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the providers
can be installed
  - cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 15: problem with installed package
mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libboost_iostreams.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - boost-iostreams-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package mongodb-server-3.6.4-2.module_1831+e8c1cdcd.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 16: package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with
fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide-29-1.noarch requires
rpmfusion-free-release = 29-1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package
rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide-29-1.noarch
 Problem 19: cannot install both proj-5.2.0-1.fc30.x86_64 and
proj-4.9.3-6.fc29.x86_64
  - package libgeotiff-1.4.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libproj.so.13()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libproj.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package libgeotiff-1.4.0-14.fc29.x86_64
  - package python2-owslib-0.17.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-pyproj,
but none of the providers can be installed
  - libgeotiff-1.4.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-owslib-0.17.0-1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 20: cannot install both rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc30.noarch and
rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc30.noarch requires rpkg-common =
1.57-6.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common =
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
  - package rfpkg-1.25.6-1.fc29.noarch requires pyrpkg >= 1.45, but none of
the providers can be installed
  - python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package rfpkg-1.25.6-1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 21: cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
and ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the providers
can be installed
  - package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch requires python3-libopenshot >=
0.2.2, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package openshot-lang-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch requires openshot =
2.4.3-2.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package openshot-lang-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch
 Problem 22: cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package exiv2-devel-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires exiv2-libs(x86-64) =
0.27.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package exiv2-devel-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package exiv2-devel-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - exiv2-devel-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Problem 23: problem with installed package
nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64
  - package nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64
  - gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

Thanks,
Richard

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 19 16:03, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I removed package problems that were obviously due to RPM Fusion not having 
> branched yet...
>
> Ignoring repositories: local, hobbes1069-JS8Call, hobbes1069-NBEMS, 
> hobbes1069-WSJT, hobbes1069-mingw, rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free, 
> rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree, virtualbox
> Error:
>   Problem 3: package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires gdal-libs(x86-64) 
> = 2.3.2-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
>    - gdal-libs-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64
>   Problem 4: package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libproj.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - proj-4.9.3-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64
>   Problem 5: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
> 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
>    - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
>   Problem 6: package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonColorPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonComputationalGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the 
> providers can be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonDataModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonExecutionModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can 
> be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonMathPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonMiscPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonSystemPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkCommonTransformsPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkFiltersCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkFiltersGeneralPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkFiltersGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkFiltersSourcesPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkFiltersTexturePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkRenderingCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkRenderingFreeTypePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libvtkRenderingLabelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - python2-vtk-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64
>   Problem 9: package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
>    - boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   Problem 13: package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and 
> ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
>    - problem with installed package ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
>    - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>    - problem with installed package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
>   Problem 15: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
>    - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libboost_iostreams.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a 
> distupgrade repository
>    - boost-iostreams-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>    - package mongodb-server-3.6.4-2.module_1831+e8c1cdcd.x86_64 is excluded
>   Problem 16: package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with 
> fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
>    - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch
>    - package rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide-29-1.noarch requires 
> rpmfusion-free-release = 29-1, but none of the providers can be installed
>    - dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide-29-1.noarch
>   Problem 19: cannot install both proj-5.2.0-1.fc30.x86_64 and 
> proj-4.9.3-6.fc29.x86_64
>    - package libgeotiff-1.4.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libproj.so.13()(64bit), but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libproj.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package libgeotiff-1.4.0-14.fc29.x86_64
>    - package python2-owslib-0.17.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-pyproj, but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>    - libgeotiff-1.4.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package python2-owslib-0.17.0-1.fc29.noarch
>   Problem 20: cannot install both rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc30.noarch and 
> rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
>    - package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc30.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc30, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
>    - package rfpkg-1.25.6-1.fc29.noarch requires pyrpkg >= 1.45, but none of the 
> providers can be installed
>    - python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - problem with installed package rfpkg-1.25.6-1.fc29.noarch
>   Problem 21: cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and 
> ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
>    - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>    - package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch requires python3-libopenshot >= 0.2.2, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
>    - package openshot-lang-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch requires openshot = 2.4.3-2.fc29, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>    - ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>    - problem with installed package openshot-lang-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch
>   Problem 22: cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and 
> exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
>    - package exiv2-devel-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires exiv2-libs(x86-64) = 
> 0.27.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package exiv2-devel-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>    - package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package exiv2-devel-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
>    - problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
>    - exiv2-devel-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>    - darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   Problem 23: problem with installed package 
> nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64
>    - package nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and 
> exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
>    - package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>    - problem with installed package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64
>    - gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository

I'll obsolete the python2 packages after the next successful rawhide compose.

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> distro-sync
> Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> 00:04
> Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
> 00:03
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
> 00:03
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
> 00:04
> Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> 00:08
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> 00:02
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> installed
> libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > distro-sync
> > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > 00:04
> > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
> > 00:03
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
> > 00:03
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
> > 00:04
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > 00:08
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > 00:02
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > Error:
> >  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > installed
> > libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> >
> > repository
> > problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.

More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > > distro-sync
> > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > > 00:04
> > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
> > > 00:03
> > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
> > > 00:03
> > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
> > > 00:04
> > > Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > > 00:08
> > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > > 00:02
> > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > > Error:
> > >   Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > > installed
> > > libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> > >
> > > repository
> > > problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> >
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.
>
> More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> subpackages :(

I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.

I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).

[Patrick Diehl]

[root@ossus Survey2]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      522 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             99  B/s | 257  B
00:02
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates               207  B/s | 257  B
00:01
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                    131  B/s | 257  B
00:01
Fedora 30 - x86_64                               20 MB/s |  61 MB
00:03
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates        52 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free                 194 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates    194 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree              193 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree'
Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free,
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree
Error:
 Problem 1: package libibcm-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64 requires
rdma-core(x86-64) = 16.2-3.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rdma-core-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package libibcm-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 3: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 5: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
> = 1, but none of the providers can be installed

- package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 6: package eclipse-cdt-2:9.6.0-5.fc30.x86_64 requires hamcrest,
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package eclipse-cdt-2:9.6.0-4.fc29.x86_64
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core =
1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - eclipse-cdt-2:9.6.0-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 7: package eclipse-epp-logging-2.0.7-6.fc30.noarch requires
osgi(org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient-cache), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package eclipse-epp-logging-2.0.7-5.fc29.noarch
  - package httpcomponents-client-cache-4.5.6-3.fc30.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) = 4.5.6, but none of the
providers can be installed
  - httpcomponents-client-cache-4.5.5-5.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - eclipse-epp-logging-2.0.7-5.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - package httpcomponents-client-4.5.6-3.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 8: package eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-3.fc30.noarch requires
maven-resolver-transport-file, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-3.fc30.noarch requires
osgi(org.apache.maven.resolver.transport.file), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-2.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-resolver-transport-file-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-spi) = 1.3.1, but none of
the providers can be installed
  - maven-resolver-transport-file-1:1.1.1-3.fc29.noarch does not belong
to a distupgrade repository
  - eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - package maven-resolver-spi-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 9: problem with installed package
maven-resolver-transport-http-1:1.1.1-3.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-resolver-transport-http-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-util) = 1.3.1, but none of
the providers can be installed
  - maven-resolver-transport-http-1:1.1.1-3.fc29.noarch does not belong
to a distupgrade repository
  - package maven-resolver-util-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 10: problem with installed package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch requires hamcrest-core =
1.3-24.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core =
1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-core-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 11: problem with installed package
system-config-firewall-1.2.29-21.fc29.noarch
  - package system-config-firewall-1.2.29-21.fc29.noarch requires
python2-slip-dbus >= 0.2.7, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-dbus-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

On 2/28/19 11:05 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > > > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > > > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > > > distro-sync
> > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > > > 00:04
> > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:03
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:03
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:04
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > > > 00:08
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > > > 00:02
> > > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > > > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > > > Error:
> > > >   Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > > > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > > > installed
> > > >    - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> > > > repository
> > > >    - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> > >
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to
> > > fix this.
> >
> > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > subpackages :(
>
> I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
>
> I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in
> batches.
> I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > subpackages :(
>
> I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.

I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.

It's difficult to obsolete subpackages correctly from
fedora-obsolete-packages when F29 keeps moving and bumping package
versions; the versioned obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages
don't stay current for very long like this. It would be much easier and
much more correct to do "Obsoletes: python2-blah < %{version}-%{release}"
from the same package spec file.

Kalev

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 2/28/19 6:55 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > subpackages :(
> >
> > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
>
> I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
> ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.

With all due respect, this would be an utter act of violence.

You can not obsolete packages which are still used by other packages nor 
can you obsolete packages which do not functionally replace other packages.

Ralf

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/28/19 19:15, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 2/28/19 6:55 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > > subpackages :(
> > >
> > > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> >
> > I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
> > ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.
>
> With all due respect, this would be an utter act of violence.
>
> You can not obsolete packages which are still used by other packages nor 
> can you obsolete packages which do not functionally replace other packages.

It's also not OK to not do anything and make F29 to F30 upgrades fail.

Kalev

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 19:15 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 2/28/19 6:55 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > > subpackages :(
> > >
> > > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> >
> > I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
> > ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.
>
> With all due respect, this would be an utter act of violence.
>
> You can not obsolete packages which are still used by other packages nor 
> can you obsolete packages which do not functionally replace other packages.

Sure you can. It is clearly semantically incorrect for 'foo' to
*provide* 'bar' if foo does not, in fact, do whatever bar did. But it
is not at all incorrect for 'foo' to *obsolete* 'bar' in this case - if
'foo' does in some sense render 'bar' obsolete.

Since libblockdev dropped its python2 subpackage, the new version of
libblockdev clearly *does* render python2-libblockdev 'obsolete',
because the two cannot co-exist. It cannot be said to 'provide'
python2-libblockdev, but it certainly *obsoletes* it.

Note that *not* doing explicit obsoletes forces people upgrading their
systems to do a much more "violent act" if they want the upgrade to
work: either manually remove all not-properly-obsoleted packages, or
use --allowerasing , which can easily cause much worse problems in many
cases of packaging issues.

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 28. 02. 19 v 18:55 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> It's difficult to obsolete subpackages correctly from
> fedora-obsolete-packages when F29 keeps moving and bumping package
> versions; the versioned obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages

The rule of versioned obsolete is that the version is the last known version of obsoleted version.
But in this case the obsoleted version is still moving so it is worth to look *why* the obsolete should be versioned.

It is because you have package bar-2.0, which become obsolete by package foo-1.0. So we want to obsolete only bar <
2.1-1 because some time in future somebody can resurect package bar and create version 3.0. This is unlikely, but can
happen.

In the case of massively obsoleting python2-* packages it is *very* unlikely that somebody will come in near future and
resurect package named python2-foo. Ergo - I do not think that in this specific case we need to obsolete the package using:

Obsoletes: python2-blah < %{version}-%{release}

but you can use fairly big number of version instead. Like current version plus two.

That will get you rid of the "moving target". It is very unlikely that it will cause an issue in near future and at the
same time it will allows somebody to resurect that package in far future (which is hard to predict).

Miroslav

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 19 8:26, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 28. 02. 19 v 18:55 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> > It's difficult to obsolete subpackages correctly from
> > fedora-obsolete-packages when F29 keeps moving and bumping package
> > versions; the versioned obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages
>
> The rule of versioned obsolete is that the version is the last known version of obsoleted version.
> But in this case the obsoleted version is still moving so it is worth to look *why* the obsolete should be versioned.
>
> It is because you have package bar-2.0, which become obsolete by package foo-1.0. So we want to obsolete only bar <
> 2.1-1 because some time in future somebody can resurect package bar and create version 3.0. This is unlikely, but can
> happen.
>
> In the case of massively obsoleting python2-* packages it is *very* unlikely that somebody will come in near future and
> resurect package named python2-foo. Ergo - I do not think that in this specific case we need to obsolete the package using:
>
> Obsoletes: python2-blah < %{version}-%{release}
>
> but you can use fairly big number of version instead. Like current version plus two.
>
> That will get you rid of the "moving target". It is very unlikely that it will cause an issue in near future and at the
> same time it will allows somebody to resurect that package in far future (which is hard to predict).

IIRC people argued with external repos and self built python2 packages.

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 18:05 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > > > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > > > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > > > distro-sync
> > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > > > 00:04
> > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:03
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:03
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:04
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > > > 00:08
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > > > 00:02
> > > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > > > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > > > Error:
> > > >   Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > > > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > > > installed
> > > > libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> > > >
> > > > repository
> > > > problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> > >
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.
> >
> > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > subpackages :(
>
> I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
>
> I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
> I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).

I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.

That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
built:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fb...

do you see any issues with that?

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 19 19:29, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 18:05 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > > > > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > > > > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > > > > distro-sync
> > > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > > > > 00:04
> > > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             71  B/s | 257  B
> > > > > 00:03
> > > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                67  B/s | 257  B
> > > > > 00:03
> > > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     62  B/s | 257  B
> > > > > 00:04
> > > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64                              7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > > > > 00:08
> > > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox                 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > > > > 00:02
> > > > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > > > > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > > > > Error:
> > > > >    Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > > > > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > > > > installed
> > > > >     - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> > > > > repository
> > > > >     - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> > > >
> > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.
> > >
> > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > subpackages :(
> >
> > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> >
> > I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
> > I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).
>
> I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
> subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
> from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.
>
> That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
> of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
> obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
> built:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fb...
>
> do you see any issues with that?

I don't. I completely agree with this approach.

According to the package guidelines, you should stick with a hardcoded 
version-release here.

However if you update the package in previous Fedoras, you need to raise the 
hardcoded version. I consider that a great PITA.

See the entire discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 00:35 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > > subpackages :(
> > >
> > > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> > >
> > > I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
> > > I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).
> >
> > I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
> > subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
> > from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.
> >
> > That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
> > of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
> > obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
> > built:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fb...
> >
> > do you see any issues with that?
>
> I don't. I completely agree with this approach.

Cool. FWIW, reading the ticket you linked, *this* approach was not
considered (only 'python3 package has obsoletes' versus 'fedora-
obsolete-packages has obsoletes' scenarios seem to have been
considered), so I'm going to consider that it's fine until someone
tells me to stop. ;)
> According to the package guidelines, you should stick with a hardcoded 
> version-release here.
> However if you update the package in previous Fedoras, you need to raise the 
> hardcoded version. I consider that a great PITA.

I do not see that anywhere in the guidelines. In fact there's an
explicit example that uses *this* pattern in the guidelines:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...

Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR

OK, that's not the precise same situation, but it seems to establish a
precedent that relative obsoletes are fine...
> See the entire discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754

Thanks! I don't see any note here that any decision was actually made
on the version question, though. The question was asked, but no
resolution to it was reported back to the ticket AFAICS.

Reading the meeting log, it seems like it's more of a policy of tibbs'
that obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages should be versioned? Which
is kind of a different thing. I haven't had any need to tell him he's
wrong about that yet. ;) But of course, that's a drawback of f-o-p: you
*can't* do something like "Obsoletes: python2-foo < %{version}-
%{release}" in f-o-p.

Another thing I note from the meeting log is that, AFAICS, no actual
vote was ever taken on any policy or declaration. I don't think your
comment on the issue - "The resolution from the meeting was the
following:

When removing py2 package, don't obsolete it from py3, but rather
obsolete it from fedora-obsolete-packages but only if keeping that
package installed is likely to cause problems on upgrades." - is
actually *correct*. From the log, nothing like that text was ever
actually proposed or voted on at all. The only quasi-formal outcome of
the entire discussion was geppetto's:

#info mhroncok to help tibbs co-maintain fedora-obsolete-packages
#info We acknowledge that there are likely to be a lot of py2 packages
added to fedora-obsolete-packages in the near future

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 19 16:36, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 00:35 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > > > subpackages :(
> > > >
> > > > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> > > >
> > > > I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
> > > > I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).
> > >
> > > I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
> > > subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
> > > from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.
> > >
> > > That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
> > > of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
> > > obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
> > > built:
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fb...
> > >
> > > do you see any issues with that?
> >
> > I don't. I completely agree with this approach.
>
> Cool. FWIW, reading the ticket you linked, *this* approach was not
> considered (only 'python3 package has obsoletes' versus 'fedora-
> obsolete-packages has obsoletes' scenarios seem to have been
> considered), so I'm going to consider that it's fine until someone
> tells me to stop. ;)
> > According to the package guidelines, you should stick with a hardcoded
> > version-release here.
> > However if you update the package in previous Fedoras, you need to raise the
> > hardcoded version. I consider that a great PITA.
>
> I do not see that anywhere in the guidelines. In fact there's an
> explicit example that uses *this* pattern in the guidelines:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
>
> Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
> Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR
>
> OK, that's not the precise same situation, but it seems to establish a
> precedent that relative obsoletes are fine...

The $obsEVR variable here represent the harcoded value if I understand it correctly.

"$obsEVR is an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple arranged so that there is a clean 
upgrade path but without gratuitously polluting the version space upwards. You 
usually do not use macros for this as you’re simply trying to advance beyond the 
last known release under the old name."

It says "usually", so I guess you are good.
> > See the entire discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754
>
> Thanks! I don't see any note here that any decision was actually made
> on the version question, though. The question was asked, but no
> resolution to it was reported back to the ticket AFAICS.
>
> Reading the meeting log, it seems like it's more of a policy of tibbs'
> that obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages should be versioned? Which
> is kind of a different thing. I haven't had any need to tell him he's
> wrong about that yet. ;) But of course, that's a drawback of f-o-p: you
> *can't* do something like "Obsoletes: python2-foo < %{version}-
> %{release}" in f-o-p.
>
> Another thing I note from the meeting log is that, AFAICS, no actual
> vote was ever taken on any policy or declaration. I don't think your
> comment on the issue - "The resolution from the meeting was the
> following:
>
> When removing py2 package, don't obsolete it from py3, but rather
> obsolete it from fedora-obsolete-packages but only if keeping that
> package installed is likely to cause problems on upgrades." - is
> actually *correct*. From the log, nothing like that text was ever
> actually proposed or voted on at all. The only quasi-formal outcome of
> the entire discussion was geppetto's:
>
> #info mhroncok to help tibbs co-maintain fedora-obsolete-packages
> #info We acknowledge that there are likely to be a lot of py2 packages
> added to fedora-obsolete-packages in the near future

You are right. I wasn't fighting for a formal resolution because I was not happy 
about the outcome.

EXTERNAL: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Wells, Roger K.]

On 2/28/19 4:23 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

HTH:

Error:
 Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 2: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: problem with installed package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Problem 5: problem with installed package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires exiv2-libs(x86-64) =
0.27.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package exiv2-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - exiv2-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 6: problem with installed package digikam-doc-5.9.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package digikam-doc-5.9.0-2.fc29.noarch requires digikam =
5.9.0-2.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64
  - gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On jeudi 28 février 2019 10:22:51 CET Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

It seems most of my problems come from the retirement of Python 2.
Gofed requires Python 2 packages and I think the maintainer jchaloup is too busy elsewhere now.

Error: 
 Problem 1: problem with installed package gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
  - gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
 Problem 2: problem with installed package gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
  - gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 3: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 4: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 5: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 6: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-2.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 7: problem with installed package gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
  - package gofed-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 requires gofed-infra = 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
 Problem 8: problem with installed package gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
  - package gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch requires gofed-gofedlib = 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 9: problem with installed package pyexiv2-0.3.2-34.fc29.x86_64
  - package pyexiv2-0.3.2-36.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_python.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - pyexiv2-0.3.2-34.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-python2-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 10: problem with installed package nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64
  - package nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 11: cannot install both rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc30.noarch and rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc30.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
  - package rfpkg-1.25.6-1.fc29.noarch requires pyrpkg >= 1.45, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rfpkg-1.25.6-1.fc29.noarch

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:24 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

(Some are related to missing RPM Fusion).

Error:
Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 2: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
Problem 4: package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
 - boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 - blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
Problem 5: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires
fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
 - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 6: problem with installed package freecad-1:0.17-2.fc29.x86_64
 - package freecad-1:0.17-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_atomic.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - freecad-1:0.17-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - boost-atomic-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
Problem 7: package freecad-data-1:0.17-2.fc30.noarch requires freecad
= 1:0.17-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
 - problem with installed package freecad-data-1:0.17-2.fc29.noarch
 - package freecad-1:0.17-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_chrono.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - freecad-data-1:0.17-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - boost-chrono-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository

Thanks,
Jaroslav
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Dario Lesca]

Il giorno gio, 28/02/2019 alle 10.22 +0100, Miroslav Suchý ha scritto:
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case
> please report it against appropriate package.

This is my result:

Errore:  Problema 1: problem with installed package rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-
6.fc29.noarch  - rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - nothing provides (rubygem(commander) >= 4.0
with rubygem(commander) < 4.3.0) needed by rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-
7.fc30.noarch  - nothing provides (rubygem(httpclient) >= 2.4.0 with
rubygem(httpclient) < 2.7.0) needed by rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-
7.fc30.noarch Problema 2: package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed  - package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libwx_baseu-
2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libwx_baseu_net-
2.8.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libwx_baseu_net-
2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
wxBase-2.8.12-31.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository  - problem with installed package amule-2.3.2-
16.fc29.x86_64 Problema 3: package amule-nogui-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64
requires libreadline.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed  - readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package amule-nogui-
2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 Problema 4: package libopenshot-0.2.2-
1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - package libopenshot-0.2.2-
1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-
3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository  - problem
with installed package libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 Problema 5:
package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libblockdev(x86-
64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed  -
libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-
1.fc29.x86_64 Problema 6: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be
installed  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-
free-release-29-1.noarch Problema 7: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-
16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64
does not belong to a distupgrade repository  - problem with installed
package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 Problema 8: package fedora-
release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the
providers can be installed  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-
1.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be
installed  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-
29-1.noarch Problema 9: package rubygem-commander-4.3.0-8.fc30.noarch
requires (rubygem(highline) >= 1.6.11 with rubygem(highline) < 1.7),
but none of the providers can be installed  - problem with installed
package rubygem-commander-4.3.0-7.fc29.noarch  - rubygem-highline-
1.6.21-7.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository  -
rubygem-commander-4.3.0-7.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository Problema 10: package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the
providers can be installed  - cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-
1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-
3.fc29.x86_64  - problem with installed package ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-
3.fc29.x86_64  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not
belong to a distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package
python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 Problema 11: package dnf-yum-
4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum provided by yum-3.4.3-
521.fc30.noarch  - problem with installed package yum-3.4.3-
518.fc29.noarch  - problem with installed package dnf-yum-4.1.0-
1.fc29.noarch  - yum-3.4.3-518.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong
to a distupgrade repository Problema 12: cannot install both
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and ImageMagick-libs-
1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64  - package ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.10.28-
1.fc30.x86_64 requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - package ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.10.28-
1.fc30.x86_64 requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - package ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.10.28-
1.fc30.x86_64 requires ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30,
but none of the providers can be installed  - package python3-
libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickCore-
6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickWand-
6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagick++-
6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch requires python3-libopenshot >=
0.2.2, but none of the providers can be installed  - ImageMagick-c++-
1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository  -
problem with installed package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch Problema
13: cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64  - package python3-
libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickCore-
6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickWand-
6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed  - package ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the
providers can be installed  - package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch
requires python3-libopenshot >= 0.2.2, but none of the providers can be
installed  - problem with installed package ImageMagick-perl-
1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64  - package openshot-lang-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch
requires openshot = 2.4.3-2.fc29, but none of the providers can be
installed  - ImageMagick-perl-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong
to a distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package openshot-
lang-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch Problema 14: cannot install both readline-8.0-
2.fc30.x86_64 and readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64  - package linphone-
3.6.1-28.fc30.x86_64 requires libreadline.so.7()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - package NetworkManager-1:1.16.0-
0.1.fc30.x86_64 requires libreadline.so.8()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed  - problem with installed package linphone-
3.6.1-28.fc29.x86_64  - problem with installed package NetworkManager-
1:1.12.6-5.fc29.x86_64  - linphone-3.6.1-28.fc29.x86_64 does not belong
to a distupgrade repository  - NetworkManager-1:1.12.6-5.fc29.x86_64
does not belong to a distupgrade repository(try to add '--allowerasing'
to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to
skip uninstallable packages)

hope this help

[Robin Lee]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:23 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.

Tested on Fedora 28:

Problem 1: problem with installed package python2-pungi-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch
  - python2-pungi-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(dict.sorted) needed by
python2-pungi-4.1.33-2.fc30.noarch
 ...
 Problem 3: package python-cephfs-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
libcephfs2 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - libcephfs2-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-cephfs-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 4: package python-rados-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
librados2 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - librados2-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python-rados-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 5: package python-rbd-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
librbd1 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librbd1-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rbd-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 6: package python-rgw-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
librgw2 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librgw2-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rgw-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 ...
 Problem 8: package python2-pylint-1.7.5-1.fc28.noarch requires
python2-isort, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-isort-4.3.4-2.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pylint-1.7.5-1.fc28.noarch
 Problem 9: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc28.noarch requires
rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc28.noarch
 Problem 10: package python3-PyXB-1.2.6-2.fc28.noarch requires
python(abi) = 3.6, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-3.6.8-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python3-PyXB-1.2.6-2.fc28.noarch
 ...
 Problem 13: problem with installed package pungi-legacy-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch
  - package pungi-legacy-4.1.33-2.fc30.noarch requires python2-pungi =
4.1.33-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - pungi-legacy-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(dict.sorted) needed by
python2-pungi-4.1.33-2.fc30.noarch
 Problem 14: package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum
provided by yum-3.4.3-521.fc30.noarch
  - problem with installed package yum-3.4.3-517.fc28.noarch
  - problem with installed package dnf-yum-2.7.5-12.fc28.noarch
  - yum-3.4.3-517.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - dnf-yum-2.7.5-12.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Phil Wyett]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 13:52 +0800, Robin Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:23 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> > try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --
> > enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> > ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> >
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> > report it against appropriate package.

A quick upgrade test this morning with 30 beta and all current updates on a
'workstation' install.

Issue:

Downgrading:
 freerdp-libs x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30
 libwinpr x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30

Info:

Rawhide, f29 and f28 are all on -49, but 30 is not and no updates pending in
testing.

Regards

Phil

- -- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

Twitter: kathenasorg
IRC: kathenas
Web: https://kathenas.org
Github: https://github.com/kathenas
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

GPG: A0C3 4C6A AC2B B8F4 F1E5 EDF4 333F 60DC B0B9 BB77
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJcsp3QAAoJEDM/YNywubt3DpUQAKuv9+8EPvDs5DVdVFRfvZHC
> 7uFk0iFeGMSxIOpNM7BSNhBh8wjyMGGIH58upgg8pL1vJxGO3kg9JLIINwi6zBS/
> WfDm4KDuHSM2cB9BUyNiuh1LgEedH8t2b+CDkg+NRo72+8MA98qEqcx78wdsWEdM
> 0kYdP0sUy4wf9uwp+tKc0sIx71Rei2RcElLH/5Ih82krtG78ffwWpv0iihAl0bNe
> 4G0TwLQ7UzCwCzZ5CGz/gapA2r8AWhpJtinDID8BgsfHOzHc4hEf+M8sgAJbb+95
> NDHdBH5wiydilecP1/SMDmlFwari6mJyLhLCeB1HJjlHRQx2l6oBkD+/p5L4EhHn
> D6i7Abep+fhwck7TDecxLnqPQhxzqBuF2HlJAMpPdHrsTL6bw+f/zwLHFTHDEcR2
> a3Nm88SZFXnMhVzAxqCqkmFL8xGDxk6RyAJzSAeonJ1EY32vufVP81smxhSqEHb8
> +SC9KSlPrE3kDNQ/kocAr878nniHPHIWVoNwi2dQyt2H29HTGiYwZL9jf/XP1Xuo
> o5pno0Ek7RDHnuh8/Aw6kUoVKJ1Am1b+vEz9HMIA/s6gh52P2jeZR9fRqFWyQqHu
> /ksajAvmlQ5zhVzt9F6cjltLAoRzg2j4pRnGkdSOS7EcMcSdS1dG0YOtb6KBByOD
> 6ebOf+ltAvcQ9fJzgsth
> =ZnW2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

EXTERNAL: Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Wells, Roger K.]

On 4/13/19 10:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 13:52 +0800, Robin Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:23 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> > try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --
> > enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> > ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> >
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> > report it against appropriate package.

A quick upgrade test this morning with 30 beta and all current updates on a
'workstation' install.

Issue:

Downgrading:
 freerdp-libs x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30
 libwinpr x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30

Info:

Rawhide, f29 and f28 are all on -49, but 30 is not and no updates pending in
testing.

Regards

Phil

results here:

Transaction Summary
==============================================================================================================================
Install      62 Packages
Upgrade    2260 Packages
Remove        4 Packages
Downgrade     2 Packages

Total download size: 2.6 G
Is this ok [y/N]:

HTH
> _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [e-mail] > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] > 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/[e-mail]

--
Roger Wells, P.E.
leidos
221 Third St
Newport, RI 02840
401-847-4210 (voice)
401-849-1585 (fax)
[e-mail]

[Diogo Galvao]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:23 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.

Could you please confirm if these two issues should really be reported
before I submit them to Bugzilla?

Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64

Problem 4: package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

If that's the case, do I file the bug reports as Fedora 30 for whois
and darktable components, respectively? Is it enough to just mention
this output?

The problems 1 and 2 not listed above are related to rpmfusion repos
so I supposed I should ignore them for now.

Best regards
Diogo

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 19 12:11, Diogo Galvao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:23 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
>
> Could you please confirm if these two issues should really be reported
> before I submit them to Bugzilla?
>
> Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64

This one was fixed by 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/whois/c/6325aeb58e79e98dfb8f94925f18f7b7c...

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:11 Diogo Galvao napsal(a):
> Problem 4: package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
> libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
> exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> If that's the case, do I file the bug reports as Fedora 30 for whois
> and darktable components, respectively? Is it enough to just mention
> this output?

This one is being addressed as part of:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674787

Generally yes - you should file bugs for Fedora 30 release. Usually it is enough pasting the output and stating that you
get this when trying to upgrade from F29 to F30.

Miroslav

[Didier Fabert]

Hi,

Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:26 ago on Fri Mar  1 12:17:22 2019.
Error:
Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 2: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls
= 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
Problem 4: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
> = 1, but none of the providers can be installed

- package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch

Best regards

Didier.

Le 28/02/2019 à 10:22, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 28.02.2019 o 10:22, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

On my system it had 13 problems, 3 of them related to rpmfusion. So I did 'dnf update' first.

Now it says (5, 8, 9 were rpmfusion related):

Problem 1: package mbox2eml-0.1.2-17.fc29.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package mbox2eml-0.1.2-17.fc29.x86_64

Problem 2: package python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python-oslo-i18n-lang = 3.19.0-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python-oslo-i18n-lang-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch

Problem 3: package python2-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch requires python-oslo-utils-lang = 3.35.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python-oslo-utils-lang-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch

Problem 4: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch

Problem 6: package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch requires python-slip >= 0.2.21, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch

Problem 7: package system-config-services-0.111.4-2.fc24.noarch requires python-slip-dbus >= 0.2.8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-dbus-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package system-config-services-0.111.4-2.fc24.noarch

Problem 10: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository

Problem 11: cannot install both python-oslo-i18n-lang-3.19.0-3.fc30.noarch and python-oslo-i18n-lang-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-3.fc30.noarch requires python-oslo-i18n-lang = 3.19.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python-oslo-i18n-lang = 3.19.0-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python2-glanceclient-1:2.10.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-glanceclient-1:2.10.0-1.fc29.noarch

Problem 12: cannot install both python-oslo-utils-lang-3.35.1-3.fc30.noarch and python-oslo-utils-lang-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-oslo-utils-3.35.1-3.fc30.noarch requires python-oslo-utils-lang = 3.35.1-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python2-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch requires python-oslo-utils-lang = 3.35.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python2-oslo-serialization-2.24.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-oslo-utils >= 3.33.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-oslo-serialization-2.24.0-1.fc29.noarch

Then I removed 'system-config-date system-config-services' from system.

My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I have packages from 
each release from F20 to F29 ;d

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a):
> My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I have packages from 
> each release from F20 to F29 ;d

In fedora-upgrade(8) I run

package-cleanup --orphans | grep -v kernel

which:

--orphans
              List installed packages which are not available from currently configured repositories.  Maps to dnf
repoquery --extras.

However, in F29 I just found that there is a regression:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684517

Miroslav

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 01.03.2019 o 13:28, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a):
> > My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I
> > have packages from each release from F20 to F29 ;d
>
> In fedora-upgrade(8) I run
>
> package-cleanup --orphans | grep -v kernel
>
> which:
>
> --orphans List installed packages which are not available from
> currently configured repositories.  Maps to dnf repoquery --extras.

In case someone tries to run it - do yourself a favour and do 'dnf
update' first. Tool lists not updated packages as orphans.

Went from 215 to 85 on my system.

Anyway it is quite dangerous tool as it lists also all out-of-fedora
packages as orphans. Copr ones, rpmfusion ones etc.

[Phil Wyett]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 10:22 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --
> enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav

As of todays f30 (2019-03-01) branch packages, I get past dep checking and to
the upgrade without issue in fairly vanilla f29 workstation VM.

Issues:

Downgrades:

firefox - I expect this to be fixed quickly so not worried.

kronosnet - rawhide/f30 is version 1.5 when f29 is 1.7.

Bug filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684716

Regards

Phil

- -- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

IRC: kathenas

Web: https://kathenas.org

Github: https://github.com/kathenas

GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

Twitter: kathenasorg

GPG: A0C3 4C6A AC2B B8F4 F1E5 EDF4 333F 60DC B0B9 BB77
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJcebetAAoJEDM/YNywubt3sx0P/3FPttjXCxnC+dPam3mGdsaN
> uHkz2JDMtQ60KVZSBE0nP8K5GZnUYfcUbWYZNljYlT86s1gUbQrAaqbkZxlfP/fm
> bhwsx5egtIfa77aK0HMzpgxN5rLq+K6ot36Wnsl9OUD4H7u6q1fOFM7RvLNkzQRL
> ycgpMetkUhx72ajEHgNw8Yq0j/5RV7x0+HKxS8MyqNX8BCsIDFkKLRzlS7wIfJX+
> P+cDtc5BxiYXldxXKyYHtnlJxImQg4DxW6Kv4ayqwwo5jsjfv/k5D692Oxk/QTf7
> A5Et+NMFffW9kiCdLUUrTfPmFQAzOxblFIgGDMA9MkqovxJH+GSQEy09xc46/Q7K
> g+11yrIVKhMjy2r7vmAGuOHN3amWOvBRb5EvhsTaOwb9XJOFGyP6Wtc1g9nMbVtm
> +SWMSMmUQZvSKzNIXR2HUltBKCQlWo64t9fWj3xtjZo0hPCfintPXLFchiccQd6a
> 4Eom8+KMCDzKgKps5hDwTfoHgvyE11re9e618PRBheg7adNev3QDkwhgX/IxgqC6
> bhx22oxyu+M8uSGnzq6uFHdblOZKb4X3um9HtQ+JwYp/EIoSs79WTJ2BKuuCzTpX
> m5bZwijijRR9slKJ2AMrAbq5K0tequ52s5aGN9tP8QdIPBVg7K25b5pwNmG90g2q
> 3PIpexugboQydeAHIiWJ
> =0AFj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Brendan Shephard]

So, do we want Bugzilla's for each of the failed deps?

brendan shephard

Technical Support engineer

Red Hat Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd https://www.redhat.com

Level 1, 193 North Quay

Brisbane 4000, QLD

Australia

https://red.ht/sig

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:24 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 18:27 +1000, Brendan Shephard wrote:
> So, do we want Bugzilla's for each of the failed deps?

Anything that isn't related to RPM Fusion and doesn't seem to have been
already addressed, yes please! It might also be nice to have a tracker
where we can collect them all...

[Nicolas Chauvet]

Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a écrit :
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
(free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
--enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide

This until fedora 30 is branched on our side (which should be done in
the next weeks, once the mass rebuild is done).
Then please remind to forward any issue to the related
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org

Thx in advances.

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
> Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a écrit :
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
> (free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide

I tried this command and basically was hit by two issues:

- freecad is not rebuild for new boost version (1.66 -> 1.69).
  Looking at Koji I see that freecad failed to rebuilt, but not logs
are available to look at.
  During installation it looks for:

boost-atomic-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64
  boost-chrono-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64

- python2-rpkg is not replaced (or something) by python3-rpkg:

Problem 1: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires
rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch

david

[Richard Shaw]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:16 AM David Abdurachmanov <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
> > Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a
>
> écrit :
> > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
>
> time and try to run:
> > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
> > (free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide
>
> I tried this command and basically was hit by two issues:
> freecad is not rebuild for new boost version (1.66 -> 1.69).

This is a known issue. I'm stuck in dependency hell right now. Current
FreeCAD needs Python 2 packages (and a couple of other FTBFS packages from
f30). The pre-release of the next version has changed over to Python 3 but
also requires PySide2 which is not in Fedora. I'm working on it as I have
time.

Thanks,
Richard

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 07:13 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:16 AM David Abdurachmanov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
> > > Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a
> >
> > écrit :
> > > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> >
> > time and try to run:
> > > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> >
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > > As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
> > > (free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
> > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > > --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide
> >
> > I tried this command and basically was hit by two issues:
> > freecad is not rebuild for new boost version (1.66 -> 1.69).
>
> This is a known issue. I'm stuck in dependency hell right now. Current
> FreeCAD needs Python 2 packages (and a couple of other FTBFS packages from
> f30). The pre-release of the next version has changed over to Python 3 but
> also requires PySide2 which is not in Fedora. I'm working on it as I have
> time.

Any Python 2 packages that FreeCAD required should not have been
retired, under the policy (you're not supposed to retire them until
nothing uses them any more, AIUI). You could ask for them to be
resurrected on this basis, I guess.

[Richard Shaw]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 9:23 AM Adam Williamson 
wrote:
> > This is a known issue. I'm stuck in dependency hell right now. Current
> > FreeCAD needs Python 2 packages (and a couple of other FTBFS packages
>
> from
> > f30). The pre-release of the next version has changed over to Python 3
>
> but
> > also requires PySide2 which is not in Fedora. I'm working on it as I have
> > time.
>
> Any Python 2 packages that FreeCAD required should not have been
> retired, under the policy (you're not supposed to retire them until
> nothing uses them any more, AIUI). You could ask for them to be
> resurrected on this basis, I guess.

Just tried to rebuild, vtk-devel has moved to qt5 but the current release
of freecad still needs qt4. My best bet it to wait until the new qt 5.12
(and related) packages are in f30/31, get PySIde2 in Fedora, and build the
pre-release.

Thanks,
Richard

[Mattia Verga]

Here some new errors:

Errore:
> > > Already reported by others, fix in progress

Problema 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> > > Already reported by others, fix in progress

Problema 2: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
> > > Reported at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684767

Problema 3: package python2-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires python2.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python2-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > Not sure it's the same as above

Problema 4: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675322

Problema 5: package linphone-3.6.1-28.fc30.x86_64 requires libreadline.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package linphone-3.6.1-28.fc29.x86_64
  - readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - linphone-3.6.1-28.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675336

Problema 6: problem with installed package luminance-hdr-2.5.1-15.fc29.x86_64
  - package luminance-hdr-2.5.1-15.fc29.x86_64 requires libboost_atomic.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - boost-atomic-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674809

Problema 7: problem with installed package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > Not sure about this, maybe related to the next error about wesnoth

Problema 8: cannot install both readline-8.0-2.fc30.x86_64 and readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package wesnoth-1.14.5-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libhistory.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package NetworkManager-1:1.16.0-0.1.fc30.x86_64 requires libreadline.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package wesnoth-1.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package NetworkManager-1:1.12.6-5.fc29.x86_64
  - wesnoth-1.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - NetworkManager-1:1.12.6-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > Not sure about this, maybe related to the previous error

Problema 9: package wesnoth-1.14.5-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libhistory.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both readline-8.0-2.fc30.x86_64 and readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package wesnoth-data-1.14.5-3.fc30.noarch requires wesnoth = 1.14.5, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package bc-1.07.1-8.fc30.x86_64 requires libreadline.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package wesnoth-data-1.14.5-1.fc29.noarch
  - package wesnoth-1.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package bc-1.07.1-6.fc29.x86_64
  - wesnoth-data-1.14.5-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - bc-1.07.1-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674809

Problema 10: problem with installed package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires exiv2-libs(x86-64) = 0.27.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package exiv2-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - exiv2-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > > FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674809

Problema 11: problem with installed package digikam-doc-5.9.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package digikam-doc-5.9.0-2.fc29.noarch requires digikam = 5.9.0-2.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package gwenview-libs-1:18.12.2-1.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package gwenview-libs-1:18.04.3-1.fc29.x86_64
  - gwenview-libs-1:18.04.3-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.

15 problems… ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 packages.
So core elements of distribution – I guess it is not worth to file bugs
for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> > ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
> >
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
>
> 15 problems… ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 packages.
> So core elements of distribution – I guess it is not worth to file bugs
> for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.

No, please do file bugs if you have the time. There is always the
possibility that some specific combination of packages is less common
than you think. Also, the automated FreeIPA upgrade test is currently
stuck on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674045 , so we're
not getting package issue reports from it; I guess I should make that
bug into a soft-fail for openQA or something. I was expecting it to get
fixed faster...

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:03:21AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> > >
> > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > >
> > > If you get this prompt:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >   Total download size: XXX M
> > >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> > >
> > > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
> > >
> > > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
> >
> > 15 problems… ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 packages.
> > So core elements of distribution – I guess it is not worth to file bugs
> > for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.
>
> No, please do file bugs if you have the time.

All right, then.

Problem 1: package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core = 1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 13: problem with installed package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core = 1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684677 *

---

Problem 2: package python-cephfs-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libcephfs2 = 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libcephfs2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-cephfs-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64

Problem 3: package python-rados-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires librados2 = 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librados2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rados-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64

Problem 4: package python-rbd-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires librbd1 = 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librbd1-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rbd-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64

Problem 5: package python-rgw-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires librgw2 = 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librgw2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rgw-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
P
roblem 14: package ceph-mgr-2:14.0.1-4.fc30.x86_64 requires python3-pecan, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python3-pecan-1.3.2-6.fc30.noarch conflicts with python2-pecan < 1.3.2-5 provided by python2-pecan-1.3.2-4.fc29.noarch
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-mgr-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package python2-pecan-1.3.2-4.fc29.noarch

Problem 15: package python-cephfs-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libcephfs2 = 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both libcephfs2-2:14.0.1-4.fc30.x86_64 and libcephfs2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package python-ceph-compat-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires python-cephfs = 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package libcephfs2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package python-ceph-compat-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684818 *

---

Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 7: package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires freeipa-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - freeipa-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 8: package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libipa_hbac = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684819 *

---

Problem 9: package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libsss_nss_idmap = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684820 *

---

Problem 10: package python2-rtslib-2.1.fb69-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-kmod, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-kmod-0.9-20.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rtslib-2.1.fb69-1.fc29.noarch

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684821 *

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2019, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:03:21AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Such?? wrote:
> > > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> > > >
> > > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > > >
> > > > If you get this prompt:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >   Total download size: XXX M
> > > >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> > > >
> > > > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
> > > >
> > > > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report it against appropriate package.
> > >
> > > 15 problems??? ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 packages.
> > > So core elements of distribution ??? I guess it is not worth to file bugs
> > > for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.
> >
> > No, please do file bugs if you have the time.
>
> All right, then.

[....]
> Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
>
> Problem 7: package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires freeipa-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> freeipa-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
>
> Problem 8: package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libipa_hbac = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684819 *
>
> Problem 9: package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libsss_nss_idmap = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684820 *

For both freeipa and sssd bugs above we already have %obsolete
statements in fedora-obsolete-packages in F30 and rawhide. It is
interesting that this is not enough. However, I have no idea what should
be done here to make those obsoletes working properly.

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 03. 19 20:16, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
> > freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
> > installed
> >  - freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a 
> > distupgrade repository
> >  - problem with installed package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
> > Problem 7: package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
> > freeipa-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> >  - freeipa-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
> >  - problem with installed package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
> > Problem 8: package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> > libipa_hbac = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> >  - libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >  - problem with installed package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684819 *
> >
> > Problem 9: package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> > libsss_nss_idmap = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
> >  - libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
> >  - problem with installed package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684820 *
>
> For both freeipa and sssd bugs above we already have %obsolete
> statements in fedora-obsolete-packages in F30 and rawhide. It is
> interesting that this is not enough. However, I have no idea what should
> be done here to make those obsoletes working properly.

python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29 yet only < 4.7.0-6 is obsoleted.

When you update freeipa in stable release, you need to bump the obsolete 
version-release in fedora-obsolete-packages.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
$releasever?

Rich.

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> $releasever?

For the record - we are speaking about:

--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30

I spoke to DNF team and:

* there is no definition of platform_id
  * while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is no guarantee that it will be this way in future
(even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
  * it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from PLATFORM_ID from /etc/os-release
  * that package we get only after upgrade
  * but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
  * DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not defined

... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.

Miroslav

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Monday, March 04 2019, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> > Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> > $releasever?
>
> For the record - we are speaking about:
>
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>
> I spoke to DNF team and:
> there is no definition of platform_id
> while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is no guarantee that it will be this way in future
>
> (even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
> it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from PLATFORM_ID from /etc/os-release
> that package we get only after upgrade
> but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
> DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not defined
>
> ... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.

FWIW, I was bit by this a few days ago:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509

The workaround is to use the --setopt option above.

Thanks,

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 08:47 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> > Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> > $releasever?
>
> For the record - we are speaking about:
>
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>
> I spoke to DNF team and:
> there is no definition of platform_id
> while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is no guarantee that it will be this way in future
>
> (even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
> it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from PLATFORM_ID from /etc/os-release
> that package we get only after upgrade
> but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
> DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not defined
>
> ... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.

Well, we have had a bug open on this for some time - at least, as I
understand it, they're the same:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509

which suggests that this is intended to be a fix for it:

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/pull/143

though it seems like it may not exactly be complete...

It would be good if DNF team could clarify this, because if they are
expecting that this will stay as-is and people will need to explicitly
specify the module_platform_id on upgrade, we are gonna need to have a
conversation about that and, if it sticks, update the documentation and
also ensure GNOME Software DTRT for graphical upgrades.

[Jaroslav Mracek]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:17 AM Adam Williamson 
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 08:47 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> > > Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> > > $releasever?
> >
> > For the record - we are speaking about:
> >
> > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> >
> > I spoke to DNF team and:
> > there is no definition of platform_id
> > while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is
>
> no guarantee that it will be this way in future
> > (even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
> > it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from
>
> PLATFORM_ID from /etc/os-release
> > that package we get only after upgrade
> > but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
> > DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not
>
> defined
> > ... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be
>
> documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.
>
> Well, we have had a bug open on this for some time - at least, as I
> understand it, they're the same:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509
>
> which suggests that this is intended to be a fix for it:
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/pull/143
>
> though it seems like it may not exactly be complete...
>
> It would be good if DNF team could clarify this, because if they are
> expecting that this will stay as-is and people will need to explicitly
> specify the module_platform_id on upgrade, we are gonna need to have a
> conversation about that and, if it sticks, update the documentation and
> also ensure GNOME Software DTRT for graphical upgrades.

I agree, this behavior is not nice. DNF team cannot do much here because
1. Format of the platform ID cannot be generated from releasever. The
definition of platform string is too general. It only requires ":" inside
therefore we cannot predict if missing module require is platform or not.
2. There were also discussions about providing the platform ID from
metadata, but I have no information about the state of the initiative.

I am going to reopen the issue with Modularity team and I hope for the best.

Jaroslav

[Christophe de Dinechin]

# sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      187 kB/s | 2.4 MB     00:12    
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             35  B/s | 257  B     00:07    
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                36  B/s | 257  B     00:07    
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     40  B/s | 257  B     00:06    
Fedora 30 - x86_64                              429 kB/s |  61 MB     02:26    
RCM Tools for Fedora 30 (RPMs)                  0.0  B/s |   0  B     00:01    
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rcm-tools-fedora-rpms'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates        24 kB/s |  71 kB     00:02    
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free                  32 kB/s |  71 kB     00:02    
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates     25 kB/s |  71 kB     00:02    
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree               19 kB/s |  71 kB     00:03    
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree'
Ignoring repositories: rcm-tools-fedora-rpms, rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree
Error: 
Problem 1: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 3: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
 - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 4: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
 - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 5: cannot install both rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc30.noarch and rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 - package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc30.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
 - package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - problem with installed package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 - package rhpkg-1.35-7.fc28eng.noarch requires python2-rpkg >= 1.57, but none of the providers can be installed
 - python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rhpkg-1.35-7.fc28eng.noarch
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

[Christophe de Dinechin]

Note sure if you care about this test from F28, but this is a heavily loaded machine where I never find the time to upgrade. Just in case it's of any use:

sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates               706  B/s | 257  B     00:00    
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                    657  B/s | 257  B     00:00    
Fedora 30 - x86_64                              721 kB/s |  61 MB     01:26    
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-multimedia', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'zfs', disabling.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Tue 05 Mar 2019 03:11:31 PM CET.
Error: 
 Problem 1: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires libass.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libass-0.13.4-6.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 2: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch requires system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-28-6.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch
 Problem 4: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libplacebo.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libplacebo-0.4.0-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 5: package fedora-release-28-6.noarch requires fedora-repos(28) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch requires system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-28-5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch
 Problem 6: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libixml.so.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libvlc.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libupnp-1.6.25-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 7: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) = 1:4.1.1-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 8: cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64
  - package opencv-contrib-3.4.4-5.fc30.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64 requires libopencv_aruco.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.57()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - opencv-contrib-3.4.1-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64
  - problem with installed package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 9: cannot install both libicu-63.1-2.fc30.x86_64 and libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64
  - package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package boost-graph-1.69.0-6.fc30.x86_64 requires libicuuc.so.63()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package boost-graph-1.66.0-5.fc28.x86_64
  - package libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - boost-graph-1.66.0-8.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-graph-1.66.0-5.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 14:20 +0000, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> Note sure if you care about this test from F28, but this is a heavily loaded machine where I never find the time to upgrade. Just in case it's of any use:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
> Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates               706  B/s | 257  B     00:00    
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                    657  B/s | 257  B     00:00    
> Fedora 30 - x86_64                              721 kB/s |  61 MB     01:26    
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-multimedia', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'zfs', disabling.
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Tue 05 Mar 2019 03:11:31 PM CET.
> Error: 
>  Problem 1: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires libass.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> libass-0.13.4-6.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64
>
> Problem 2: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>
> Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch requires system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
> fedora-release-28-6.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch
>
> Problem 4: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libplacebo.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> libplacebo-0.4.0-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
>
> Problem 5: package fedora-release-28-6.noarch requires fedora-repos(28) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
> package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch requires system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
> fedora-repos-28-5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch
>
> Problem 6: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libixml.so.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libvlc.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> libupnp-1.6.25-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
>
> Problem 7: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) = 1:4.1.1-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
> libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>
> Problem 8: cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64
> package opencv-contrib-3.4.4-5.fc30.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64 requires libopencv_aruco.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.57()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> opencv-contrib-3.4.1-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64
> problem with installed package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>
> Problem 9: cannot install both libicu-63.1-2.fc30.x86_64 and libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64
> package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package boost-graph-1.69.0-6.fc30.x86_64 requires libicuuc.so.63()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> problem with installed package boost-graph-1.66.0-5.fc28.x86_64
> package libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> boost-graph-1.66.0-8.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> boost-graph-1.66.0-5.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>
> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

That's mainly RPM Fusion stuff, which is kinda out of scope. Thanks for
the report, though!

[mastaiza wufam]

sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Copr repo for bumblebee owned by chenxiaolong   126  B/s | 341  B
 00:02
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «chenxiaolong-bumblebee»
Copr repo for flat-remix owned by daniruiz      177  B/s | 341  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «daniruiz-flat-remix»
Copr repo for Riot owned by taw                 176  B/s | 341  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «taw-Riot»
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64        151  B/s | 543  B
 00:03
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64        1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB
 00:00
Импорт GPG-ключа 0xCFC659B9:
Идентификатор пользователя:  "Fedora (30) <
[e-mail]>"
Отпечаток: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
Источник:  /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Продолжить? [д/Н]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64        976  B/s | 5.1 kB
 00:05
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64                      491 kB/s | 2.4 MB
 00:04
negativo17 - Multimedia                         1.9 kB/s | 2.6 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «fedora-multimedia»
negativo17 - Nvidia                              41 kB/s | 115 kB
 00:02
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates             62  B/s | 257  B
 00:04
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                69  B/s | 257  B
 00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                     68  B/s | 257  B
 00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64                              3.3 MB/s |  61 MB
 00:18
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free tainted          47 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-free-tainted»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates        46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-free-updates»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free                  46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-free»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Dri  46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория
«rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree tainted       46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-nonfree-tainted»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates     47 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-nonfree-updates»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree               46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-nonfree»
RPM Sphere - Basearch                           1.1 kB/s | 3.0 kB
 00:02
RPM Sphere - Noarch                             1.1 kB/s | 3.0 kB
 00:02
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates    70  B/s |  81  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «russianfedora-free-updates»
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Free              55  B/s |  64  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «russianfedora-free»
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Update  72  B/s |  84  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория
«russianfedora-nonfree-updates»
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Nonfree           58  B/s |  67  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «russianfedora-nonfree»
Ignoring repositories: chenxiaolong-bumblebee, daniruiz-flat-remix,
taw-Riot, fedora-multimedia, rpmfusion-free-tainted,
rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver,
rpmfusion-nonfree-tainted, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree,
russianfedora-free-updates, russianfedora-free,
russianfedora-nonfree-updates, russianfedora-nonfree
Ошибка:
 Проблема 1: problem with installed package klavaro-3.03-6.fc29.x86_64
  - klavaro-3.03-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libgtkdataboks.so.0()(64bit) needed by
klavaro-3.04-1.fc30.x86_64
 Проблема 2: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 3: package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58(LIBAVCODEC_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libavutil.so.56()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56(LIBAVUTIL_56)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 4: package mpv-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavdevice.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavdevice.so.58(LIBAVDEVICE_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package mpv-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 5: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Проблема 6: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
> = 1, but none of the providers can be installed

- package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Проблема 7: problem with installed package glob2-0.9.4.4-44.fc29.x86_64
  - package glob2-0.9.4.4-44.fc29.x86_64 requires
libboost_date_time.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - boost-date-time-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Проблема 8: problem with installed package violetland-0.5-10.4.x86_64
  - package violetland-0.5-10.4.x86_64 requires
libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Проблема 9: package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with
fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-free-release-tainted-29-1.noarch requires
rpmfusion-free-release = 29-1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package
rpmfusion-free-release-tainted-29-1.noarch
 Проблема 10: package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.x86_64 conflicts with
fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-tainted-29-1.noarch requires
rpmfusion-nonfree-release = 29-1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package
rpmfusion-nonfree-release-tainted-29-1.noarch
 Проблема 11: package ffmpeg-3.3.6-3.4.x86_64 requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64)
= 3.3.6-3.4, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both ffmpeg-libs-3.3.6-3.4.x86_64 and
ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58(LIBAVCODEC_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56(LIBAVUTIL_56)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavformat.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavformat.so.58(LIBAVFORMAT_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswresample.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswresample.so.3(LIBSWRESAMPLE_3)(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswscale.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswscale.so.5(LIBSWSCALE_5)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libpostproc.so.55()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64 requires
libpostproc.so.55(LIBPOSTPROC_55)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package mplayer-1.3.0-26.20180620svn.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 12: problem with installed package cyphesis-0.6.2-19.fc28.x86_64
  - package cyphesis-0.6.2-19.fc28.x86_64 requires
libreadline.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Проблема 13: cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package opencv-contrib-3.4.4-5.fc30.x86_64 requires
libtesseract.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_calib3d.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_aruco.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_bgsegm.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_bioinspired.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_ccalib.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_datasets.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_dpm.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_face.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_freetype.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_fuzzy.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_hdf.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_img_hash.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_line_descriptor.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_optflow.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_phase_unwrapping.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_plot.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_reg.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_rgbd.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_saliency.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_stereo.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_structured_light.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_surface_matching.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_tracking.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_ximgproc.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_xobjdetect.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64 requires
libopencv_xphoto.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58(LIBAVCODEC_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56(LIBAVUTIL_56)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavfilter.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavfilter.so.7(LIBAVFILTER_7)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavformat.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavformat.so.58(LIBAVFORMAT_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswresample.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswresample.so.3(LIBSWRESAMPLE_3)(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswscale.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswscale.so.5(LIBSWSCALE_5)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - opencv-contrib-3.4.1-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package mpv-libs-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.4-3.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 14: tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.i686 has inferior architecture
  - package tesseract-langpack-rus-4.0.0-3.fc30.noarch requires tesseract =
4.0.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package
tesseract-langpack-rus-3.05.02-1.fc29.noarch
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58(LIBAVCODEC_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56(LIBAVUTIL_56)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavformat.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavformat.so.58(LIBAVFORMAT_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswresample.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswresample.so.3(LIBSWRESAMPLE_3)(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswscale.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libswscale.so.5(LIBSWSCALE_5)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - tesseract-langpack-rus-3.05.02-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package telegram-desktop-1.5.15-1.fc29.x86_64
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

вт, 5 мар. 2019 г. в 21:58, Adam Williamson :
> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 14:20 +0000, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> > Note sure if you care about this test from F28, but this is a heavily
>
> loaded machine where I never find the time to upgrade. Just in case it's of
> any use:
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
> > Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates               706  B/s | 257  B
>
> 00:00
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                    657  B/s | 257  B
>
> 00:00
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64                              721 kB/s |  61 MB
>
> 01:26
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable', disabling.
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-multimedia', disabling.
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling.
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free', disabling.
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates',
>
> disabling.
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree', disabling.
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'zfs', disabling.
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Tue 05 Mar 2019 03:11:31
>
> PM CET.
> > Error:
> >  Problem 1: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libass.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > libass-0.13.4-6.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package
>
> compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64
> > Problem 2: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
> >
> > Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch requires
>
> system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
> > fedora-release-28-6.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch
> >
> > Problem 4: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libplacebo.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > libplacebo-0.4.0-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
> >
> > Problem 5: package fedora-release-28-6.noarch requires fedora-repos(28)
> > = 1, but none of the providers can be installed
> > package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch requires
>
> system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
> > fedora-repos-28-5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch
> >
> > Problem 6: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libixml.so.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libvlc.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > libupnp-1.6.25-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
> >
> > Problem 7: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) =
>
> 1:4.1.1-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
> > libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > problem with installed package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
> >
> > Problem 8: cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
>
> tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64
> > package opencv-contrib-3.4.4-5.fc30.x86_64 requires
>
> libtesseract.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libopencv_aruco.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libavcodec.so.57()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > opencv-contrib-3.4.1-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package
>
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64
> > problem with installed package
>
> gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64
> > Problem 9: cannot install both libicu-63.1-2.fc30.x86_64 and
>
> libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64
> > package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package boost-graph-1.69.0-6.fc30.x86_64 requires
>
> libicuuc.so.63()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > problem with installed package boost-graph-1.66.0-5.fc28.x86_64
> > package libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
>
> libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > boost-graph-1.66.0-8.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > boost-graph-1.66.0-5.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
>
> repository
> > problem with installed package libavdevice-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
> >
> > (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
>
> packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
>
> That's mainly RPM Fusion stuff, which is kinda out of scope. Thanks for
> the report, though!
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Glenn Johnson]

Transaction Summary
===================================================================================================================
Install    34 Packages
Upgrade  1681 Packages
Remove      5 Packages

Total download size: 1.8 G
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.

[Raphael Groner]

$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
[...]
 Problem 1: package lxqt-l10n-0.13.0-1.fc29.noarch requires libfm-qt-l10n = 0.13.0-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libfm-qt-l10n-0.13.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package lxqt-l10n-0.13.0-1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 2: package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch requires python2-flake8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: problem with installed package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core = 1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 4: problem with installed package maven-wagon-ssh-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-wagon-ssh-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.maven.wagon:wagon-provider-api) = 3.2.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - maven-wagon-ssh-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package maven-wagon-provider-api-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 5: problem with installed package maven-wagon-ssh-common-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-wagon-ssh-common-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.maven.wagon:wagon-provider-api) = 3.2.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - maven-wagon-ssh-common-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package maven-wagon-provider-api-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
[root@builder29 ~]#

[Miro Hrončok]

On 14. 04. 19 20:21, Raphael Groner wrote:
> $ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> [...]
>   Problem 2: package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch requires python2-flake8, but none of the providers can be installed
> python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch

Fixed: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-46aa341001

[Garry T. Williams]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:22:51 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

garry@ifr$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
[sudo] password for garry:
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         1.3 kB/s | 542  B     00:00
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         160 kB/s | 1.6 kB     00:00
Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
 Userid     : "Fedora (30) "
 Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
 From       : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         6.4 kB/s | 5.1 kB     00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                4.3 MB/s |  14 MB     00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                      98 kB/s |  18 kB     00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64                               3.1 MB/s |  54 MB     00:17
google-chrome                                     35 kB/s | 1.3 kB     00:00
google-chrome                                     46 kB/s | 3.4 kB     00:00
Copr repo for qt5-qtbase-print-dialog-advanced o 112 kB/s | 100 kB     00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates         68 kB/s |  71 kB     00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free                  1.1 MB/s | 737 kB     00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates     185 kB/s |  71 kB     00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree               148 kB/s | 227 kB     00:01
Visual Studio Code                                20 kB/s | 2.9 kB     00:00
Visual Studio Code                               203 kB/s | 2.1 MB     00:10
Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
Error:
 Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
garry@ifr$

Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:11 PM Garry T. Williams  wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:22:51 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> garry@ifr$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> [sudo] password for garry:
> Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         1.3 kB/s | 542  B     00:00
> Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         160 kB/s | 1.6 kB     00:00
> Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
>  Userid     : "Fedora (30) "
>  Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
>  From       : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
> Is this ok [y/N]: y
> Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         6.4 kB/s | 5.1 kB     00:00
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                4.3 MB/s |  14 MB     00:03
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                      98 kB/s |  18 kB     00:00
> Fedora 30 - x86_64                               3.1 MB/s |  54 MB     00:17
> google-chrome                                     35 kB/s | 1.3 kB     00:00
> google-chrome                                     46 kB/s | 3.4 kB     00:00
> Copr repo for qt5-qtbase-print-dialog-advanced o 112 kB/s | 100 kB     00:00
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates         68 kB/s |  71 kB     00:01
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free                  1.1 MB/s | 737 kB     00:00
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates     185 kB/s |  71 kB     00:00
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree               148 kB/s | 227 kB     00:01
> Visual Studio Code                                20 kB/s | 2.9 kB     00:00
> Visual Studio Code                               203 kB/s | 2.1 MB     00:10
> Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
> python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch
>
> Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
> package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
> package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> garry@ifr$
>
> Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?

MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

[Miro Hrončok]

On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:11 PM Garry T. Williams  wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:22:51 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> > >
> > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > garry@ifr$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > [sudo] password for garry:
> > Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         1.3 kB/s | 542  B     00:00
> > Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         160 kB/s | 1.6 kB     00:00
> > Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
> >   Userid     : "Fedora (30) "
> >   Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
> >   From       : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
> > Is this ok [y/N]: y
> > Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64         6.4 kB/s | 5.1 kB     00:00
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates                4.3 MB/s |  14 MB     00:03
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates                      98 kB/s |  18 kB     00:00
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64                               3.1 MB/s |  54 MB     00:17
> > google-chrome                                     35 kB/s | 1.3 kB     00:00
> > google-chrome                                     46 kB/s | 3.4 kB     00:00
> > Copr repo for qt5-qtbase-print-dialog-advanced o 112 kB/s | 100 kB     00:00
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates         68 kB/s |  71 kB     00:01
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free                  1.1 MB/s | 737 kB     00:00
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates     185 kB/s |  71 kB     00:00
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree               148 kB/s | 227 kB     00:01
> > Visual Studio Code                                20 kB/s | 2.9 kB     00:00
> > Visual Studio Code                               203 kB/s | 2.1 MB     00:10
> > Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
> > Error:
> >   Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
> > python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch
> >
> > Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
> > package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >
> > Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
> > package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> > mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> > boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >
> > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> > garry@ifr$
> >
> > Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?
>
> MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal

Except it was not:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
>
> Except it was not:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379

It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
(Of course that needs to go stable)

kevin

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 12:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
> >
> > Except it was not:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379
>
> It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
> and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
> (Of course that needs to go stable)

Can you mark the update as being associated with the bug? That needs to
be done for it to get pulled into the normal blocker / FE request
process. Thanks!

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 4/15/19 2:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 12:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
> > >
> > > Except it was not:
> > >
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379
> >
> > It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
> > and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
> > (Of course that needs to go stable)
>
> Can you mark the update as being associated with the bug? That needs to
> be done for it to get pulled into the normal blocker / FE request
> process. Thanks!

Well, fedora-obsolete-packages requires a bug, so I filed:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700073

for the update. I thought we didn't want to use "change" bugs as
blockers/exceptions? (since they would get closed before they perhaps
should be?).

I can add the change bug if you like tho... or we could transfer the FE
to the other bug?

kevin

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 14:37 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 4/15/19 2:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 12:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
> > > >
> > > > Except it was not:
> > > >
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379
> > >
> > > It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
> > > and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
> > > (Of course that needs to go stable)
> >
> > Can you mark the update as being associated with the bug? That needs to
> > be done for it to get pulled into the normal blocker / FE request
> > process. Thanks!
>
> Well, fedora-obsolete-packages requires a bug, so I filed:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700073
>
> for the update. I thought we didn't want to use "change" bugs as
> blockers/exceptions? (since they would get closed before they perhaps
> should be?).

Oh, yes, good point.
> I can add the change bug if you like tho... or we could transfer the FE
> to the other bug?

Yeah, let's do that.

[Miro Hrončok]

On 15. 04. 19 3:10, Garry T. Williams wrote:
> Error:
>   Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
> python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch

Fixed in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-46aa341001
> Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
> package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
> package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> garry@ifr$
>
> Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379

Mongodb should have been removed from Fedora 30, but it was not removed 
completely. Instead, it has broken upgrade.

[Guido Aulisi]

Il giorno gio, 28/02/2019 alle 10.22 +0100, Miroslav Suchý ha scritto:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
> ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real
> upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case
> please report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav

I got this:

Errore: 
 Problema: problem with installed package rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-
1.5.0-0.9.alpha.16.fc30.noarch
  - rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.9.alpha.16.fc30.noarch does not
belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides (rubygem(concurrent-ruby) >= 1.1.0 with
rubygem(concurrent-ruby) < 1.2) needed by rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-
1.5.0-0.10.alpha.18.fc31.noarch
  - nothing provides (rubygem(treetop) >= 1.5.0 with rubygem(treetop) <
1.6) needed by rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.10.alpha.18.fc31.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Ciao
Guido