9:24 a.m.
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
Now this, which I'm guessing is a packaging issue which a user shouldn't
have to deal with:
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib/firmware/intel/sof-tplg from install of
alsa-sof-firmware-1.4.2-5.fc32.noarch conflicts with file from package
alsa-firmware-1.2.1-4.fc31.noarch
Thanks,
Richard
9:49 a.m.
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:24:14AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the
upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
This should not be the case. If you have any such packages, please always
report it as a bug against fedora-obsolete-packages. This should be done
even after GA, since we can always fix the upgrade path for people who didn't
upgrade immediately.
Now this, which I'm guessing is a packaging issue which a user
shouldn't
have to deal with:
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib/firmware/intel/sof-tplg from install of
alsa-sof-firmware-1.4.2-5.fc32.noarch conflicts with file from package
alsa-firmware-1.2.1-4.fc31.noarch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830753
Zbyszek
9:55 a.m.
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the
upgrade smooth.
>
> There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
> necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
This should not be the case. If you have any such packages, please always
report it as a bug against fedora-obsolete-packages. This should be done
even after GA, since we can always fix the upgrade path for people who didn't
upgrade immediately.
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my
system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Scott
10:02 a.m.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:55 am, Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net> wrote:
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from
my system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path
becomes impossible. So that sounds bad. Probably it should be a
protected package to prevent it from being removed.
10:08 a.m.
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed
from my
> system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path
becomes impossible. So that sounds bad. Probably it should be a protected
package to prevent it from being removed.
That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
Scott
10:47 a.m.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:08 am, Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net> wrote:
That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how
this is supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
11:02 a.m.
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:08 am, Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net>
wrote:
> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
> upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how
this is supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
It's a shiny new dnf feature, it seems: it can now do its job without
being permanently installed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
this surprised me too!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
11:04 a.m.
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how this is
supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
Sounds like it is new expected behavior of dnf:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
11:39 a.m.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
>
> Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
>
> It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how this
is
> supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
Sounds like it is new expected behavior of dnf:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
The default clean_requirements_on_remove is still something I turn off
immediately on any system's dnf.conf. It's come up before[1] that this
could be presented way better in the dnf UI, it's very confusing.
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
-Dan
11:53 a.m.
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
> >
> > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
> >
> > It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how this
> is
> > supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
>
> Sounds like it is new expected behavior of dnf:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
The default clean_requirements_on_remove is still something I turn off
immediately on any system's dnf.conf. It's come up before[1] that this
could be presented way better in the dnf UI, it's very confusing.
No, this is not related to clean_requirements_on_remove. As mentioned
upthread, fedora-obsolete-packages now does its job without being installed.
Zbyszek
12:08 p.m.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:54 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >
> > >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
upgrade.
> > >
> > > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
> > >
> > > It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how
this
> > is
> > > supposed to work? Or has something improperly obsoleted it?
> >
> > Sounds like it is new expected behavior of dnf:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
>
>
> The default clean_requirements_on_remove is still something I turn off
> immediately on any system's dnf.conf. It's come up before[1] that this
> could be presented way better in the dnf UI, it's very confusing.
No, this is not related to clean_requirements_on_remove. As mentioned
upthread, fedora-obsolete-packages now does its job without being
installed.
Sorry I was responding to the confusion in the linked bug report which
stems from the UI display of that feature.
-Dan
6:52 p.m.
On 08. 05. 20 17:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:55 am, Scott Talbert <swt(a)techie.net>
wrote:
> Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my system
> on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path becomes
impossible.
I just want to clarify what others have said in this thread. This statement is
not correct, the package does not need to be installed in order to help with the
upgrade path. It only needs to be in the repository and obsolete the problematic
packages.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
11:02 a.m.
On 08.05.2020 16:55, Scott Talbert wrote:
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from
my
system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/pull-request/23
fedora-obsolete-packages is no longer required.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vitaly(a)easycoding.org)
6:50 p.m.
On 08. 05. 20 16:55, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
>>
>> There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
>> necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
>
> This should not be the case. If you have any such packages, please always
> report it as a bug against fedora-obsolete-packages. This should be done
> even after GA, since we can always fix the upgrade path for people who didn't
> upgrade immediately.
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my system on
upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Yes. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827398
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
3:58 p.m.
On Friday, May 8, 2020 7:24:14 AM MST Richard Shaw wrote:
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the
upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
I noticed this as well, and it's a damned shame. It would have been nice if
these packages could have been kept. They still work, even now, and are still
widely used.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
6:54 p.m.
On 09. 05. 20 22:58, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Friday, May 8, 2020 7:24:14 AM MST Richard Shaw wrote:
> Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
>
> There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
> necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
I noticed this as well, and it's a damned shame. It would have been nice if
these packages could have been kept. They still work, even now, and are still
widely used.
Could you please provide the list of packages you have noticed needed
--allowerasing?
Could you please provide a list of packages that have been removed but are still
widely used?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
6:56 p.m.
On 08. 05. 20 16:24, Richard Shaw wrote:
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed
which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
Do you still have that list? Maybe in `dnf history`? If so, we can make the
experience nicer, but I cannot help without the list. The idea was that all
problematic packages are obsoleted, but this data is extremely hard to collect
without users reporting in with the actual lists.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
5:25 a.m.
On 11. 05. 20 1:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 08. 05. 20 16:24, Richard Shaw wrote:
> There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
> necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
Do you still have that list? Maybe in `dnf history`? If so, we can make the
experience nicer, but I cannot help without the list. The idea was that all
problematic packages are obsoleted, but this data is extremely hard to collect
without users reporting in with the actual lists.
I got that list and extracted the following from it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837981
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
1443
days inactive
1455
days old
18 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Adam Williamson -
Dan Book -
John M. Harris Jr -
Michael Catanzaro -
Miro Hrončok -
Richard Shaw -
Samuel Sieb -
Scott Talbert -
Vitaly Zaitsev -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek