Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F39 to F40

[Miroslav Suchý]

Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:

# Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
# next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
# This is last time we should do that :)

sudo dnf module reset '*'

dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
--enablerepo=updates-testing \
$(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
--assumeno distro-sync

This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal potential problems.

You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.

The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the actual upgrade.

In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate package.

Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 40. Please check existing reports 
against fedora-obsolete-packages first:

https://red.ht/2kuBDPu

and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F40FailsToInstall) reports:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...

Two notes:

* you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf. Do not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides 
all problems.

* this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue with teamd that you will likely hit too:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334

and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I reported. For convenience here is the relevant part of 
Fedora Guidelines:

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

Thank you

Miroslav

[Luna Jernberg]

Worked good on my Thinkpad Edge laptop some weeks ago

Den ons 21 feb. 2024 kl 08:12 skrev Miroslav Suchý :
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> # This is last time we should do that :)
>
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
> This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal potential problems.
>
> You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
>
> The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the actual upgrade.
>
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate package.
>
> Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 40. Please check existing reports against fedora-obsolete-packages first:
>
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F40FailsToInstall) reports:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...
>
> Two notes:
>
> you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf. Do not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides all problems.
>
> this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue with teamd that you will likely hit too:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334
>
> and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I reported. For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
>
> Thank you
> Miroslav
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Luna Jernberg]

Other then some missing RPMFusion packages

Den ons 21 feb. 2024 kl 09:13 skrev Luna Jernberg :
> Worked good on my Thinkpad Edge laptop some weeks ago
>
> Den ons 21 feb. 2024 kl 08:12 skrev Miroslav Suchý :
> > Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> >
> > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> > # This is last time we should do that :)
> >
> > sudo dnf module reset '*'
> >
> > dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> > --assumeno distro-sync
> >
> > This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal potential problems.
> >
> > You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
> >
> > The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the actual upgrade.
> >
> > In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate package.
> >
> > Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 40. Please check existing reports against fedora-obsolete-packages first:
> >
> > https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
> >
> > and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F40FailsToInstall) reports:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...
> >
> > Two notes:
> >
> > you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf. Do not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides all problems.
> >
> > this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue with teamd that you will likely hit too:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334
> >
> > and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I reported. For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines:
> >
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
> >
> > Thank you
> > Miroslav
> >
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Leigh Scott]

What is missing?
> Other then some missing RPMFusion packages

[Felix Schwarz]

Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:24 ago on Wed Feb 21 10:16:20 2024.
Error:
  Problem: problem with installed package visidata-2.11.1-2.fc39.noarch
   - visidata-2.11.1-2.fc39.noarch from @System  does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
   - nothing provides /usr/bin/-S needed by visidata-3.0.2-1.fc40.noarch from fedora
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Other than that the process works.

[Felix Schwarz]

I just found that my visidata issue is likely being handled via

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264975
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265038
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/285

[hhlp]

al good as always good work only add --allowerasing in my case

Installing weak dependencies:
  boost-numpy3                     x86_64 1.83.0-3.fc40 fedora  30 k
  cups-filters-driverless          x86_64 1:2.0.0-6.fc40 fedora  29 k
  gnome-software-fedora-langpacks  x86_64 46~beta-1.fc40 fedora  24 k
  libxcrypt-compat                 x86_64 4.4.36-5.fc40 fedora  89 k
  nbdkit                           x86_64 1.37.8-1.fc40 fedora  16 k
  nbdkit-curl-plugin               x86_64 1.37.8-1.fc40 fedora  46 k
  nbdkit-ssh-plugin                x86_64 1.37.8-1.fc40 fedora  35 k
  passim                           x86_64 0.1.5-3.fc40 fedora 161 k
  pkcs11-provider                  x86_64 0.3-2.fc40 fedora 120 k
  python3-keyring+completion       noarch 24.3.0-6.fc40 fedora  14 k
  python3-tabulate+widechars       noarch 0.9.0-6.fc40 fedora 9.1 k
  rpm-plugin-audit                 x86_64 4.19.1.1-1.fc40 fedora  20 k
  xdriinfo                         x86_64 1.0.7-2.fc40 fedora  21 k
Removing:
  kernel                           x86_64 6.7.3-200.fc39 @System
0
  kernel-core                      x86_64 6.7.3-200.fc39 @System
66 M
  kernel-devel                     x86_64 6.7.3-200.fc39 @System
70 M
  kernel-modules                   x86_64 6.7.3-200.fc39 @System
57 M
  kernel-modules-core              x86_64 6.7.3-200.fc39 @System
32 M
  kernel-modules-extra             x86_64 6.7.3-200.fc39 @System
2.4 M
Removing dependent packages:
  gnome-shell-extension-pop-shell  noarch 1.2.0^21.aafc945-1.fc39 @System
416 k
  kmod-v4l2loopback-6.7.3-200.fc39.x86_64
                                   x86_64 0.12.7^20230503g2c9b670-2.fc39
@@commandline
24 k
Downgrading:
  bind-libs                        x86_64 32:9.18.21-4.fc40 fedora 1.2 M
  bind-license                     noarch 32:9.18.21-4.fc40 fedora  14 k
  bind-utils                       x86_64 32:9.18.21-4.fc40 fedora 225 k
  conmon                           x86_64 2:2.1.8-4.fc40 fedora  52 k
  meld                             noarch 3.22.0-6.fc40 fedora 990 k
  mysql-connector-python3          noarch 8.0.21-12.fc40 fedora 575 k
  qbittorrent                      x86_64 1:4.6.3-1.fc40 fedora 7.4 M

Transaction Summary
================================================================================

Install      95 Packages
Upgrade    4572 Packages
Remove        8 Packages
Downgrade     7 Packages

El 21/2/24 a las 8:11, Miroslav Suchý escribió:
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

[Kalev Lember]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:07 PM hhlp  wrote:
> al good as always good work only add --allowerasing in my case

Please don't add --allowerasing when doing this test because it hides the
issues that we are interested in.

[Dominique Martinet]

Miroslav Suchý wrote on Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:11:49AM +0100:
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

Error: 
 Problem 1: problem with installed package calc-libs-2.14.1.5-2.fc39.x86_64
  - calc-libs-2.14.1.5-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libcustcalc.so.2.15.0.2()(64bit) needed by calc-libs-2.15.0.2-3.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
 Problem 2: problem with installed package calc-2.14.1.5-2.fc39.x86_64
  - calc-2.14.1.5-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libcustcalc.so.2.15.0.2()(64bit) needed by calc-2.15.0.2-3.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
 Problem 3: package emacs-nox-1:29.2-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires emacs-common = 1:29.2-2.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - emacs-common-1:29.2-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package emacs-nox-1:29.2-2.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 4: package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed
  - network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 5: problem with installed package calc-stdrc-2.14.1.5-2.fc39.x86_64
  - package calc-stdrc-2.15.0.2-3.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires calc = 2.15.0.2-3.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
  - calc-stdrc-2.14.1.5-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libcustcalc.so.2.15.0.2()(64bit) needed by calc-2.15.0.2-3.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
 Problem 6: package network-scripts-teamd-1.32-4.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package network-scripts-teamd-1.32-1.fc39.x86_64
  - package network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires initscripts(x86-64) = 10.20-1.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - network-scripts-teamd-1.32-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - initscripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository

So calc, emacs-nox and network-scripts-teamd.

Didn't take the time to fill any bz; I might this weekend if nobody does

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Dominique Martinet kirjoitti 21.2.2024 klo 15.13:
> Miroslav Suchý wrote on Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:11:49AM +0100:
> > dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> > --assumeno distro-sync
>
> Error:
>   Problem 6: package network-scripts-teamd-1.32-4.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed
> problem with installed package network-scripts-teamd-1.32-1.fc39.x86_64
> package network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires initscripts(x86-64) = 10.20-1.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
> network-scripts-teamd-1.32-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> initscripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository

I got this one as well. This happens because network-scripts sub-package 
was just recently dropped from initscripts [1,2]. It looks like it was 
improperly dropped, because the existing dependents were not handled.

I am not sure if I should comment in already closed bug about dropping 
network-scripts, or open a new one (against which component?). I'll cc 
initscripts maintainers here. Could you check network-scripts-teamd and 
possible other remaining dependents of network-scripts and handle them, 
by arranging them to be retired and obsoleted or whatever is appropriate 
in each case?

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262795
[2]: 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/c/414789841de9247310ebfd37cd0...

[Didier Fabert]

Le 21/02/2024 à 08:11, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
> sudo dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \

--enablerepo=updates-testing \
$(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
--enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
--assumeno distro-sync

Erreur :
  Problème 1: problème avec le paquet installé blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64
   - blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
   - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit) needed by 
blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
  Problème 2: package audiocd-kio-libs-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64 from 
@System requires audiocd-kio = 16.08.3-21.fc39, but none of the 
providers can be installed
   - audiocd-kio-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to 
a distupgrade repository
   - problème avec le paquet installé 
audiocd-kio-libs-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64

I will try to find time this week-end to fill bz

[Kai A. Hiller]

Error:
  Problem: problem with installed package 
telegram-desktop-4.14.15-1.fc39.x86_64
   - telegram-desktop-4.14.15-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not 
belong to a distupgrade repository
   - nothing provides qt6-qtbase(x86-64) = 6.6.1 needed by 
telegram-desktop-4.14.15-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-free

On 2024-02-21 08:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your 
> time and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> # This is last time we should do that :)
>
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
> This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> potential problems.
>
> You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
>
> The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the 
> actual upgrade.
>
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the 
> appropriate package.
>
> Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed 
> in Fedora 40. Please check existing reports against 
> fedora-obsolete-packages first:
>
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" 
> (F40FailsToInstall) reports:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...
>
> Two notes:
> you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf.
>
> Do not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides all problems.
> this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue
>
> with teamd that you will likely hit too:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334
>
> and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I 
> reported. For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Garry T. Williams]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 2:11:49 AM EST Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

No problem on my Dell workstation.  But on my Dell XPS-13 laptop I
get:

Error: 
 Problem 1: package audiocd-kio-libs-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires audiocd-kio = 16.08.3-21.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - audiocd-kio-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package audiocd-kio-libs-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 2: package ktp-accounts-kcm-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires kaccounts-integration(x86-64) >= 23.04, but none of the providers can be installed
  - kaccounts-integration-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package ktp-accounts-kcm-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 3: package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed
  - network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 4: package network-scripts-teamd-1.32-4.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package network-scripts-teamd-1.32-1.fc39.x86_64
  - package network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires initscripts(x86-64) = 10.20-1.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - network-scripts-teamd-1.32-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - initscripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

[Kalev Lember]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:41 AM Garry T. Williams 
wrote:
> Problem 3: package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64 from @System
> requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed
> network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a
>
> distupgrade repository
> problem with installed package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64

This one should be fixed in
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9289eac273

[Ankur Sinha]

No issues here on my primary driver (with updates-testing enabled,
though), but did see some packages being downgraded:

Downgrading:
 bind-libs          x86_64 32:9.18.21-4.fc40                               fedora             1.2 M
 bind-license       noarch 32:9.18.21-4.fc40                               fedora              14 k
 bind-utils         x86_64 32:9.18.21-4.fc40                               fedora             225 k
 conmon             x86_64 2:2.1.8-4.fc40                                  fedora              52 k
 dnf5               x86_64 5.1.12-1.fc40                                   fedora             588 k
 dnf5-plugins       x86_64 5.1.12-1.fc40                                   fedora             351 k
 fuse-overlayfs     x86_64 1.12-3.fc40                                     fedora              67 k
 libdnf5            x86_64 5.1.12-1.fc40                                   fedora             974 k
 libdnf5-cli        x86_64 5.1.12-1.fc40                                   fedora             262 k
 perl-Tk            x86_64 804.036-12.fc39                                 fedora             2.2 M
 python3-patool     noarch 1.12-0.27.20231014gitab64562.fc40               fedora             146 k
 python3-plotly     noarch 5.18.0-9.fc40                                   fedora              17 M
 python3-xarray     noarch 2023.8.0-1.fc40                                 fedora             2.4 M
 python3-xlsxwriter noarch 3.1.9-3.fc40                                    fedora             324 k
 python3-xnat       noarch 0.5.1-6.fc40                                    fedora             228 k

Transaction Summary
======================================================================================================
Install      86 Packages
Upgrade    4183 Packages
Remove        3 Packages
Downgrade    15 Packages

Total download size: 6.6 G
Operation aborted.

I'll look at plotly and xnat, since they are neuro-sig packages.

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 08:11 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run:
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --
> enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

No problem on either my laptop or its heavily used toolbx.

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, at 12:11 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> # This is last time we should do that :)
>
> sudo dnf module reset '*'

Uhh haha :)

$ sudo dnf module reset '*'
Last metadata expiration check: 0:03:30 ago on Wed 21 Feb 2024 06:41:04 PM MST.
Unable to resolve argument *
Error: Problems in request:
missing groups or modules: *

--
Chris Murphy

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, at 6:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, at 12:11 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
> >
> > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> > # This is last time we should do that :)
> >
> > sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> Uhh haha :)
>
> $ sudo dnf module reset '*'
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:03:30 ago on Wed 21 Feb 2024 06:41:04 PM MST.
> Unable to resolve argument *
> Error: Problems in request:
> missing groups or modules: *

OK I'm just going to ignore this since I'm not using any module profiles or streams.

--
Chris Murphy

[Solomon Peachy]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:11:49AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:

From the Fedora systems I have immediate access to:

Well-used F39 Workstation:

Problem: problem with installed package blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64
  - blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit) needed by blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora

Fairly standard F39 Server:

Problem: package emacs-nox-1:29.2-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires emacs-common = 1:29.2-2.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - emacs-common-1:29.2-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package emacs-nox-1:29.2-2.fc39.x86_64

(Very) Special Snowflake F38 shell server:

Problem 1: problem with installed package python3-vdirsyncer-0.18.0-8.fc38.noarch
  - python3-vdirsyncer-0.18.0-8.fc38.noarch from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides (python3.12dist(aiostream) < 0.5~~ with python3.12dist(aiostream) >= 0.4.3) needed by python3-vdirsyncer-0.19.2-1.fc40.noarch from fedora
 Problem 2: package mozjs78-78.15.0-10.fc38.x86_64 from @System requires libicui18n.so.72()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mozjs78-78.15.0-10.fc38.x86_64 from @System requires libicuuc.so.72()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libicu-72.1-2.fc38.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package mozjs78-78.15.0-10.fc38.x86_64
 Problem 3: package pipenv-2022.10.25-2.fc38.noarch from @System requires python(abi) = 3.11, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-3.11.7-2.fc38.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package pipenv-2022.10.25-2.fc38.noarch
 Problem 4: package khal-0.11.2-6.fc40.noarch from fedora requires vdirsyncer >= 0.8.1-2, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package khal-0.11.2-4.fc38.noarch
  - package vdirsyncer-0.19.2-1.fc40.noarch from fedora requires python3-vdirsyncer = 0.19.2, but none of the providers can be installed
  - vdirsyncer-0.18.0-8.fc38.noarch from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - khal-0.11.2-4.fc38.noarch from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides (python3.12dist(aiostream) < 0.5~~ with python3.12dist(aiostream) >= 0.4.3) needed by python3-vdirsyncer-0.19.2-1.fc40.noarch from fedora
 Problem 5: package vdirsyncer-0.18.0-8.fc38.noarch from @System requires python3-vdirsyncer = 0.18.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package vdirsyncer-0.18.0-8.fc38.noarch
  - package python3-vdirsyncer-0.18.0-8.fc38.noarch from @System requires python3.11dist(atomicwrites) >= 0.1.7, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package vdirsyncer-0.19.2-1.fc40.noarch from fedora requires python3-vdirsyncer = 0.19.2, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-atomicwrites-1.4.1-2.fc38.noarch from @System  does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides (python3.12dist(aiostream) < 0.5~~ with python3.12dist(aiostream) >= 0.4.3) needed by python3-vdirsyncer-0.19.2-1.fc40.noarch from fedora

Additionally, One other F39 workstation, two minimal F39 headless 
systems, one F39 server, and one F38 server went smoothly.

All in all, a pretty small pile of issues from what I normally see.

- Solomon

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:12 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:

No problems experienced on my primary desktop.

Thanks!

[Chris Murphy]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, at 12:11 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

No errors with the above. However, I do get errors actually trying to upgrade.

$ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=40
Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running "dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: y
Copr repo for PyCharm owned by phracek           70 kB/s |  55 kB     00:00    
Fedora 40 - x86_64                                                                                                                                                                                     3.6 MB/s |  92 MB     00:25    
Fedora 40 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64                                                                                                                                                               3.1 kB/s | 2.6 kB     00:00    
Fedora 40 - x86_64 - Updates                                                                                                                                                                           429  B/s | 257  B     00:00    
google-chrome                                                                                                                                                                                           10 kB/s | 3.6 kB     00:00    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Free                                                                                                                                                                        810 kB/s | 609 kB     00:00    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Free - Updates                                                                                                                                                              2.6 kB/s | 1.7 kB     00:00    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree                                                                                                                                                                     139 kB/s | 262 kB     00:01    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Driver                                                                                                                                                      25 kB/s |  15 kB     00:00    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree - Steam                                                                                                                                                             3.1 kB/s | 2.2 kB     00:00    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree - Updates                                                                                                                                                           1.2 kB/s | 1.2 kB     00:00    
TeamViewer - x86_64                                                                                                                                                                                    4.1 kB/s | 867  B     00:00    
TeamViewer - x86_64                                                                                                                                                                                     44 kB/s | 3.1 kB     00:00    
Importing GPG key 0x0C1289C0:
Userid     : "TeamViewer GmbH (TeamViewer Linux 2017) "
Fingerprint: 8CAE 012E BFAC 38B1 7A93 7CD8 C5E2 2450 0C12 89C0
From       : https://linux.teamviewer.com/pubkey/currentkey.asc
Is this ok [y/N]: y
TeamViewer - x86_64                                                                                                                                                                                    1.1 MB/s | 695 kB     00:00    
No match for group package "python3-dnf-plugin-system-upgrade"
No match for group package "lohit-nepali-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "get_iplayer"
No match for group package "kscd"
No match for group package "samyak-odia-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-gujarati-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-nastaleeq-fonts"
No match for group package "alsa-plugins-freeworld-lavrate"
No match for group package "mybashburn"
No match for group package "layla-ruqaa-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-malayalam-fonts"
No match for group package "audacious-plugins-freeworld-mms"
No match for group package "layla-koufi-fonts"
No match for group package "paktype-ajrak-fonts"
No match for group package "fontawesome-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts"
No match for group package "mplayer-gui"
No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-riqa-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-web-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-tamil-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-devanagari-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-diwani-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-arcyarc-fonts"
No match for group package "eosrei-emojione-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-basic-arabic-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-digital-fonts"
No match for group package "google-noto-looped-thai-fonts"
No match for group package "lohit-tamil-classical-fonts"
No match for group package "cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts"
No match for group package "kalapi-fonts"
No match for group package "lohit-malayalam-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts"
No match for group package "gstreamer1-plugins-bad-nonfree"
No match for group package "multican"
No match for group package "layla-boxer-fonts"
No match for group package "google-noto-sans-phags-pa-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-thuluth-fonts"
Error: 
Problem: conflicting requests
  - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.i686 from fedora conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
  - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
  - problem with installed package intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64
  - intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  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)

--
Chris Murphy

[Jos de Kloe]

I get the following output:

------

sudo dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 
--enablerepo=updates-testing $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && 
echo
--enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) --assumeno distro-sync
bash: --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular: command not found
Fedora 40 - x86_64                                        6.5 MB/s |  92 
MB     00:14
Fedora 40 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64                  4.0 kB/s | 2.6 
kB     00:00
Fedora 40 - x86_64 - Updates                              1.2 kB/s | 257 
  B     00:00
Fedora 40 - x86_64 - Test Updates                         1.0 kB/s | 257 
  B     00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Free                           1.1 MB/s | 609 
kB     00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Free - Updates                 4.2 kB/s | 1.7 
kB     00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree                        563 kB/s | 262 
kB     00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 40 - Nonfree - Updates              4.1 kB/s | 1.2 
kB     00:00
Error:
  Problem 1: package audiocd-kio-libs-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64 from 
@System requires audiocd-kio = 16.08.3-21.fc39, but none of the 
providers can be installed
   - audiocd-kio-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to 
a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package audiocd-kio-libs-16.08.3-21.fc39.x86_64
  Problem 2: package ktp-accounts-kcm-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
requires kaccounts-integration(x86-64) >= 23.04, but none of the 
providers can be installed
   - kaccounts-integration-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not 
belong to a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package ktp-accounts-kcm-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64
  Problem 3: package ktp-accounts-kcm-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
requires kaccounts-integration(x86-64) >= 23.04, but none of the 
providers can be installed
   - package kaccounts-integration-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
requires accounts-qml-module(x86-64), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package ktp-contact-list-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
requires ktp-accounts-kcm, but none of the providers can be installed
   - accounts-qml-module-0.7-10.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not 
belong to a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package ktp-contact-list-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64
  Problem 4: package 
accounts-qml-module-qt6-0.7^20231216.05e79eb-3.fc40.x86_64 from fedora 
obsoletes accounts-qml-module < 0.7^20231216 provided by 
accounts-qml-module-0.7-10.fc39.x86_64 from @System
   - package kaccounts-integration-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
requires accounts-qml-module(x86-64), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package kio-gdrive-24.01.95-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires 
accounts-qml-module-qt6, but none of the providers can be installed
   - package ktp-accounts-kcm-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
requires kaccounts-integration(x86-64) >= 23.04, but none of the 
providers can be installed
   - problem with installed package kio-gdrive-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64
   - package ktp-text-ui-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires 
ktp-accounts-kcm, but none of the providers can be installed
   - kio-gdrive-23.08.5-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package ktp-text-ui-23.04.3-2.fc39.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

On 2/21/24 08:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> # This is last time we should do that :)
>
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
> This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> potential problems.
>
> You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
>
> The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the 
> actual upgrade.
>
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the 
> appropriate package.
>
> Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in 
> Fedora 40. Please check existing reports against 
> fedora-obsolete-packages first:
>
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" 
> (F40FailsToInstall) reports:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...
>
> Two notes:
> you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf.
>
> Do not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides all problems.
> this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue
>
> with teamd that you will likely hit too:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334
>
> and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I reported. 
> For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Geraldo Simião Kutz]

*This are the repos enabled here:*
id do repo                          nome do repo
fedora                              Fedora 39 - x86_64
fedora-cisco-openh264               Fedora 39 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
google-chrome-beta                  google-chrome-beta
rpmfusion-free                      RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free
rpmfusion-free-tainted              RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free tainted
rpmfusion-free-updates              RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free -
Updates
rpmfusion-free-updates-testing      RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Free - Test
Updates
rpmfusion-nonfree                   RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Nonfree
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates           RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Nonfree -
Updates
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing   RPM Fusion for Fedora 39 - Nonfree -
Test Updates
updates                             Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates
updates-testing                     Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Test Updates

*This was the command used:* *sudo dnf system-upgrade download
--releasever=40*

*This was the output:*
Erro:
 Problema: solicitações conflitantes
  - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.i686 from fedora
conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by
intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
  - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by
intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
  - problema com o pacote instalado libva-2.20.0-2.fc39.x86_64
  - libva-2.20.0-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

*With this other command:* *sudo dnf system-upgrade download
--releasever=40 --allowerasing --best*

*I got this result:*
Erro:
 Problema: solicitações conflitantes
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.22.9-3.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
requires libva.so.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by
intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
  - package vlc-plugin-gstreamer-1:3.0.20-12.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
requires gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free(x86-64), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - não é possível instalar o melhor candidato para a tarefa
  - libva-2.20.0-2.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.22.9-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not
belong to a distupgrade repository

*But **then I removed gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free and run:*  *sudo dnf
system-upgrade download --releasever=40 --allowerasing --best
--exclude=libva-intel-media-driver,gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free,vlc-plugin-gstreamer,libva*

and the upgrade did proceed without errors.

Now I'm on F40 KDE and all is working fine (already upgraded libva and
reinstalled gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free)

Em qua., 21 de fev. de 2024 às 04:12, Miroslav Suchý 
escreveu:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> # This is last time we should do that :)
>
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
> This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal
> potential problems.
>
> You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
>
> The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the
> actual upgrade.
>
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the
> appropriate package.
>
> Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in
> Fedora 40. Please check existing reports against fedora-obsolete-packages
> first:
>
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F40FailsToInstall)
> reports:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...
>
> Two notes:
> you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf. Do
>
> not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides all problems.
> this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue with
>
> teamd that you will likely hit too:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334
>
> and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I reported.
> For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
>
> Thank you
> Miroslav
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

Hi!

On Wednesday, 21 February 2024 at 08:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run:

[...]
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the
> appropriate package.

I did run `dnf system-upgrade` and it revealed no issues at all, not
even downgrades. I am excluding a bunch of packages from being installed
via exclude= in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, though. These include hardware
enablement for hardware I can't possibly have on this particular
machine.

So, good job on F40, Fedora community!

Regards,
Dominik

[Ralf Corsépius]

# dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
...
No match for group package "multican"
...

WTH?

[Samuel Sieb]

On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> ...
> No match for group package "multican"
> ...
>
> WTH?

It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been retired.
Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.  The comps 
groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.

[Ralf Corsépius]

Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > ...
> > No match for group package "multican"
> > ...
> >
> > WTH?
>
> It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been retired.
> Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.

Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group 
list" could find "multican".
> The comps 
> groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.

Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing 
unusable shape.

Ralf

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > ...
> > > No match for group package "multican"
> > > ...
> > >
> > > WTH?
> >
> > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > retired.
> > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
>
> Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group 
> list" could find "multican".
> > The comps 
> > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
>
> Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing 
> unusable shape.

No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts"
No match for group package "cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts"
No match for group package "fedora-repos-modular"
No match for group package "fontawesome-fonts"
No match for group package "gimp-heif-plugin"
No match for group package "google-noto-emoji-color-fonts"
No match for group package "google-noto-looped-thai-fonts"
No match for group package "google-noto-sans-phags-pa-fonts"
No match for group package "ht-caladea-fonts"
No match for group package "ibus-bogo"
No match for group package "iwl1000-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl100-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl105-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl135-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl2000-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl2030-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl3160-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl3945-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl4965-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl5000-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl5150-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl6000-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl6000g2a-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl6000g2b-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl6050-firmware"
No match for group package "iwl7260-firmware"
No match for group package "iwlax2xx-firmware"
No match for group package "kalapi-fonts"
No match for group package "kde-print-manager"
No match for group package "layla-arcyarc-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-basic-arabic-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-boxer-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-digital-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-diwani-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-koufi-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-ruqaa-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-thuluth-fonts"
No match for group package "libertas-usb8388-firmware"
No match for group package "libproxy-duktape"
No match for group package "lohit-malayalam-fonts"
No match for group package "lohit-nepali-fonts"
No match for group package "lohit-tamil-classical-fonts"
No match for group package "multican"
No match for group package "nafees-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-nastaleeq-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-riqa-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-web-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "paktype-ajrak-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-devanagari-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-gujarati-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-malayalam-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-odia-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-tamil-fonts"
No match for group package "scim-sayura"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-garuda-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-kinnari-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-laksaman-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-loma-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-norasi-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-purisa-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-sawasdee-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-tlwgmono-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-tlwgtypewriter-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-tlwgtypist-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-tlwgtypo-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-umpush-fonts"
No match for group package "thai-scalable-waree-fonts"
No match for group package "util-linux-user"

I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?
> Ralf
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Samuel Sieb]

On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > > ...
> > > > No match for group package "multican"
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > WTH?
> > >
> > > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > > retired.
> > > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
> >
> > Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group
> > list" could find "multican".
> > > The comps
> > > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
> >
> > Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing
> > unusable shape.
>
> No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"

[snip]
> No match for group package "util-linux-user"
>
> I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?

No.  Well, sort of.  As mentioned, those are packages that have been 
removed from the distro, but are still listed in the comps groups.  dnf 
checks the installed groups for packages that need to be updated and 
can't find these ones.

[Ralf Corsépius]

Am 24.02.24 um 01:36 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > > > ...
> > > > > No match for group package "multican"
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > WTH?
> > > >
> > > > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > > > retired.
> > > > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
> > >
> > > Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group
> > > list" could find "multican".
> > > > The comps
> > > > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
> > >
> > > Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing
> > > unusable shape.
> >
> > No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
>
> [snip]
> > No match for group package "util-linux-user"
> >
> > I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?

I am seeing these on another machine, too.
> No.  Well, sort of.  As mentioned, those are packages that have been 
> removed from the distro, but are still listed in the comps groups.  dnf 
> checks the installed groups for packages that need to be updated and 
> can't find these ones.

Really? How do I check for which groups I have installed?

At least I haven't found any way to check for them, neither with rpm nor 
with dnf.

Finally, another issue:
...
Error:
  Problem: conflicting requests
   - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.i686 from fedora 
conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
   - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora 
conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
   - problem with installed package intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64
   - intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  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)

I see 2 potential issues in there:
1. I think, I once "dnf swapped" these packages => Does "dnf 
system-upgrade" handle "swapped" packages correctly?

2. Why does dnf system-upgrade wants to pull-in a i686 package in this 
case? IMO, this doesn't make sense.

Ralf

[Samuel Sieb]

On 2/24/24 00:47, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> Am 24.02.24 um 01:36 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > > > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > No match for group package "multican"
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WTH?
> > > > >
> > > > > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > > > > retired.
> > > > > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group
> > > > list" could find "multican".
> > > > > The comps
> > > > > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
> > > >
> > > > Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing
> > > > unusable shape.
> > >
> > > No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
> >
> > [snip]
> > > No match for group package "util-linux-user"
> > >
> > > I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?
>
> I am seeing these on another machine, too.

I expect you would see that on all machines.
> > No.  Well, sort of.  As mentioned, those are packages that have been 
> > removed from the distro, but are still listed in the comps groups.  
> > dnf checks the installed groups for packages that need to be updated 
> > and can't find these ones.
>
> Really? How do I check for which groups I have installed?
>
> At least I haven't found any way to check for them, neither with rpm nor 
> with dnf.

dnf group list --installed
> Finally, another issue:
> ...
> Error:
>   Problem: conflicting requests
>    - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.i686 from fedora 
> conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
> intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
>    - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora 
> conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
> intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
>    - problem with installed package intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64
>    - intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  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)
>
> I see 2 potential issues in there:
> I think, I once "dnf swapped" these packages => Does "dnf
>
> system-upgrade" handle "swapped" packages correctly?

How you installed the package is mostly irrelevant.  The package is 
installed, so it will get upgraded if possible.
> Why does dnf system-upgrade wants to pull-in a i686 package in this
>
> case? IMO, this doesn't make sense.

I'm unclear on which way the check is going.  Which package(s) do you 
have installed?

rpm -qa | grep intel-media

[Samuel Sieb]

On 2/24/24 01:12, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 2/24/24 00:47, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > Error:
> >   Problem: conflicting requests
> >    - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.i686 from fedora 
> > conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
> > intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
> >    - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora 
> > conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
> > intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
> >    - problem with installed package 
> > intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64
> >    - intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  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)
> >
> > I see 2 potential issues in there:
> > I think, I once "dnf swapped" these packages => Does "dnf
> >
> > system-upgrade" handle "swapped" packages correctly?
>
> How you installed the package is mostly irrelevant.  The package is 
> installed, so it will get upgraded if possible.
> > Why does dnf system-upgrade wants to pull-in a i686 package in this
> >
> > case? IMO, this doesn't make sense.
>
> I'm unclear on which way the check is going.  Which package(s) do you 
> have installed?

Never mind that question.  The following lines show which one you have.

[Ralf Corsépius]

Am 24.02.24 um 10:12 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> On 2/24/24 00:47, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > Am 24.02.24 um 01:36 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > > > > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > No match for group package "multican"
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WTH?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > > > > > retired.
> > > > > > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group
> > > > > list" could find "multican".
> > > > > > The comps
> > > > > > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing
> > > > > unusable shape.
> > > >
> > > > No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > No match for group package "util-linux-user"
> > > >
> > > > I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?
> >
> > I am seeing these on another machine, too.
>
> I expect you would see that on all machines.
> > > No.  Well, sort of.  As mentioned, those are packages that have been 
> > > removed from the distro, but are still listed in the comps groups. 
> > > dnf checks the installed groups for packages that need to be updated 
> > > and can't find these ones.
> >
> > Really? How do I check for which groups I have installed?
> >
> > At least I haven't found any way to check for them, neither with rpm 
> > nor with dnf.
>
> dnf group list --installed

# dnf group list --installed
Last metadata expiration check: 4:04:39 ago on Sun 25 Feb 2024 01:48:48 
PM CET.
Installed Environment Groups:
    Xfce Desktop
Installed Groups:
    Administration Tools
    LibreOffice
    Fonts
    Hardware Support

# dnf system-upgrade --release=40 download
...
No match for group package "paktype-ajrak-fonts"
No match for group package "eosrei-emojione-fonts"
No match for group package "google-noto-sans-phags-pa-fonts"
No match for group package "multican"
No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-thuluth-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-digital-fonts"
No match for group package "lohit-nepali-fonts"
No match for group package "google-noto-looped-thai-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "lohit-tamil-classical-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-gujarati-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-arcyarc-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-riqa-fonts"
No match for group package "gimp-heif-plugin"
No match for group package "kalapi-fonts"
No match for group package "ibus-bogo"
No match for group package "samyak-devanagari-fonts"
No match for group package "scim-sayura"
No match for group package "lohit-malayalam-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-odia-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-basic-arabic-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-diwani-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-tamil-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-web-naskh-fonts"
No match for group package "cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-ruqaa-fonts"
No match for group package "samyak-malayalam-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-boxer-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts"
No match for group package "fontawesome-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts"
No match for group package "nafees-nastaleeq-fonts"
No match for group package "layla-koufi-fonts"
No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts"
...

My actual problem seems to be not being able to get rid of the 
"installed groups".

"dnf group remove <group>" apparently uninstalls all packages from this 
<group>.

This is not what I want. I want to remove the comps-groups from my 
system, because of the harmful effects they obviously have.

Ralf

[Samuel Sieb]

On 2/25/24 09:02, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> My actual problem seems to be not being able to get rid of the 
> "installed groups".
>
> "dnf group remove <group>" apparently uninstalls all packages from this 
> <group>.
>
> This is not what I want. I want to remove the comps-groups from my 
> system, because of the harmful effects they obviously have.

What harmful effect?  It's not doing anything.  Removing the groups is 
more likely to cause a problem later.  But if it's really bugging you 
then you can use:
dnf group mark remove the_group

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 25. 02. 24 v 18:02 Ralf Corsépius napsal(a):
> Am 24.02.24 um 10:12 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > On 2/24/24 00:47, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > Am 24.02.24 um 01:36 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > > On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > > Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > > > > > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > >> No match for group package "multican"
> > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> WTH?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > > > > > > retired.
> > > > > > > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
> > > > > > Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf group
> > > > > > list" could find "multican".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The comps
> > > > > > > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
> > > > > > Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an embarrassing
> > > > > > unusable shape.
> > > > >
> > > > > No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > No match for group package "util-linux-user"
> > > > >
> > > > > I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?
> > >
> > > I am seeing these on another machine, too.
> >
> > I expect you would see that on all machines.
> > > > No.  Well, sort of.  As mentioned, those are packages that have 
> > > > been removed from the distro, but are still listed in the comps 
> > > > groups. dnf checks the installed groups for packages that need to 
> > > > be updated and can't find these ones.
> > >
> > > Really? How do I check for which groups I have installed?
> > >
> > > At least I haven't found any way to check for them, neither with rpm 
> > > nor with dnf.
> >
> > dnf group list --installed
>
> # dnf group list --installed
> Last metadata expiration check: 4:04:39 ago on Sun 25 Feb 2024 
> 01:48:48 PM CET.
> Installed Environment Groups:
>    Xfce Desktop
> Installed Groups:
>    Administration Tools
>    LibreOffice
>    Fonts
>    Hardware Support
>
> # dnf system-upgrade --release=40 download
> ...
> No match for group package "paktype-ajrak-fonts"

Just looking at the first one, this is defined here:

https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/main/f/comps-f40.xml.in#_2189

https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/main/f/comps-f41.xml.in#_2189

So if those packages were dropped, then the same person who did that 
should update also the groups.

Looking at dist-git:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/paktype-ajrak-fonts

It seems those were removed due to being orphaned. That suggest that the 
process should be improved to cover comps. Adding the responsible people 
on CC.

Vít
> No match for group package "eosrei-emojione-fonts"
> No match for group package "google-noto-sans-phags-pa-fonts"
> No match for group package "multican"
> No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts"
> No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-thuluth-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-digital-fonts"
> No match for group package "lohit-nepali-fonts"
> No match for group package "google-noto-looped-thai-fonts"
> No match for group package "nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts"
> No match for group package "lohit-tamil-classical-fonts"
> No match for group package "samyak-gujarati-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-arcyarc-fonts"
> No match for group package "nafees-riqa-fonts"
> No match for group package "gimp-heif-plugin"
> No match for group package "kalapi-fonts"
> No match for group package "ibus-bogo"
> No match for group package "samyak-devanagari-fonts"
> No match for group package "scim-sayura"
> No match for group package "lohit-malayalam-fonts"
> No match for group package "nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts"
> No match for group package "samyak-odia-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-basic-arabic-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-diwani-fonts"
> No match for group package "samyak-tamil-fonts"
> No match for group package "nafees-naskh-fonts"
> No match for group package "nafees-web-naskh-fonts"
> No match for group package "cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-ruqaa-fonts"
> No match for group package "samyak-malayalam-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-boxer-fonts"
> No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts"
> No match for group package "fontawesome-fonts"
> No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts"
> No match for group package "nafees-nastaleeq-fonts"
> No match for group package "layla-koufi-fonts"
> No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts"
> ...
>
> My actual problem seems to be not being able to get rid of the 
> "installed groups".
>
> "dnf group remove <group>" apparently uninstalls all packages from 
> this <group>.
>
> This is not what I want. I want to remove the comps-groups from my 
> system, because of the harmful effects they obviously have.
> Ralf
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 09:47 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> Am 24.02.24 um 01:36 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > Am 23.02.24 um 22:37 schrieb Samuel Sieb:
> > > > > On 2/23/24 10:50, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
> > > > > > # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=40
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > No match for group package "multican"
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WTH?
> > > > >
> > > > > It was a program for controlling Canon cameras that has been
> > > > > retired.
> > > > > Some group you have installed has that package listed in it.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, this likely explains why neither "dnf repoquery" nor "dnf
> > > > group
> > > > list" could find "multican".
> > > > > The comps
> > > > > groups need to be cleaned out and that's just a warning.
> > > >
> > > > Well, ... IMHO, most about comps and groups is in an
> > > > embarrassing
> > > > unusable shape.
> > >
> > > No match for group package "baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts"
> >
> > [snip]
> > > No match for group package "util-linux-user"
> > >
> > > I got these ones , is something on my rpm db ?
>
> I am seeing these on another machine, too.
> > No.  Well, sort of.  As mentioned, those are packages that have
> > been 
> > removed from the distro, but are still listed in the comps groups. 
> > dnf 
> > checks the installed groups for packages that need to be updated
> > and 
> > can't find these ones.
>
> Really? How do I check for which groups I have installed?
>
> At least I haven't found any way to check for them, neither with rpm
> nor 
> with dnf.
>
> Finally, another issue:
> ...
> Error:
>   Problem: conflicting requests
>    - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.i686 from fedora 
> conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
> intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
>    - package libva-intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from
> fedora 
> conflicts with intel-media-driver provided by 
> intel-media-driver-24.1.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from rpmfusion-nonfree
>    - problem with installed package intel-media-driver-23.4.3-
> 1.fc39.x86_64
>    - intel-media-driver-23.4.3-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  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)
>
> I see 2 potential issues in there:
> I think, I once "dnf swapped" these packages => Does "dnf
>
> system-upgrade" handle "swapped" packages correctly?
> Why does dnf system-upgrade wants to pull-in a i686 package in
>
> this 
> case? IMO, this doesn't make sense.

we are trying fix this one in here :
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6861

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Miroslav Suchý kirjoitti 21.2.2024 klo 9.11:
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
>
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

In addition to some problems that already have Bugzilla entries or such, 
and were already reported in this thread too, I got some problems with 
retired Rubygems:

|$ LANG=C.UTF-8 sudo dnf --releasever=40 --enablerepo=updates-testing 
--assumeno distro-sync Problem 3: package 
rubygem-byebug-11.1.3-5.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires 
libruby.so.3.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - 
ruby-libs-3.2.2-181.fc39.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository - problem with installed package 
rubygem-byebug-11.1.3-5.fc39.x86_64 Problem 4: package 
rubygem-shoulda-3.6.0-14.fc39.noarch from @System requires 
(rubygem(shoulda-context) >= 1.0 with rubygem(shoulda-context) < 2 with 
rubygem(shoulda-context) >= 1.0.1), but none of the providers can be 
installed - rubygem-shoulda-context-1.2.2-16.fc39.noarch from @System 
does not belong to a distupgrade repository - problem with installed 
package rubygem-shoulda-3.6.0-14.fc39.noarch Problem 6: cannot install 
both ruby-libs-3.3.0-4.fc40.x86_64 from fedora and 
ruby-libs-3.2.2-181.fc39.x86_64 from @System - package 
ruby-3.3.0-4.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires ruby-libs(x86-64) = 
3.3.0-4.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed - package 
ruby-3.3.0-4.fc40.x86_64 from fedora requires libruby.so.3.3()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed - package 
rubygem-byebug-11.1.3-5.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires 
libruby.so.3.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - 
problem with installed package ruby-3.2.2-181.fc39.x86_64 - package 
rubygem-pry-byebug-3.6.0-13.fc39.noarch from @System requires 
(rubygem(byebug) >= 11.0 with rubygem(byebug) < 12), but none of the 
providers can be installed - ruby-3.2.2-181.fc39.x86_64 from @System 
does not belong to a distupgrade repository - problem with installed 
package rubygem-pry-byebug-3.6.0-13.fc39.noarch |

||

I filed a PR for fedora-obsolete-packages for these [1].

[1]: 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/pull-request/86

|
|

[Cristian Le]

Hi,

Here's my contribution to this: error upgrading `flang-devel`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267221

On 2024/02/21 8:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your 
> time and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> # This is last time we should do that :)
>
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
> This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> potential problems.
>
> You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
>
> The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the 
> actual upgrade.
>
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the 
> appropriate package.
>
> Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed 
> in Fedora 40. Please check existing reports against 
> fedora-obsolete-packages first:
>
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" 
> (F40FailsToInstall) reports:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2231790&bug_id_type=andde...
>
> Two notes:
> you may want to run the same command with dnf5 to help test new dnf.
>
> Do not forget to add --best otherwise DNF5 hides all problems.
> this command found several issues on my workstation. One was issue
>
> with teamd that you will likely hit too:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263334
>
> and there was few other with missing provides/obsoletes that I 
> reported. For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repla...
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

I'm getting:

Problem 1: package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 and boost-thread-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 2: package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722(ZYPP_plain)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp(x86-64) >= 17.31.7, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 and boost-thread-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64
  - package boost-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64 requires boost-thread(x86-64) = 1.83.0-3.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package boost-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 3: package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722(ZYPP_plain)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp(x86-64) = 17.31.8-2.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 and boost-thread-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64
  - package boost-locale-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.83.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package boost-locale-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64 requires boost-thread(x86-64) = 1.83.0-3.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package boost-locale-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 4: problem with installed package 
  - package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 and boost-thread-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64
  - package boost-log-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.83.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package boost-log-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 5: problem with installed package 
  - package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722(ZYPP_plain)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypper-1.14.59-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp(x86-64) >= 17.31.7, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 requires boost-system(x86-64) = 1.81.0-8.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both boost-system-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 and boost-system-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package boost-system-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64
 Problem 6: problem with installed package 
  - package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp.so.1722(ZYPP_plain)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package zypp-tools-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libzypp(x86-64) = 17.31.8-2.fc39, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libzypp-17.31.8-2.fc39.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both boost-thread-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64 and boost-thread-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64
  - package boost-type_erasure-1.83.0-3.fc40.x86_64 requires libboost_thread.so.1.83.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package boost-type_erasure-1.81.0-8.fc39.x86_64

Zbyszek

[Barry Scott]

On 21/02/2024 07:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync

Fedora KDE spin - Intel CPU AMD GPU -

Error:
  Problem: problem with installed package blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64
   - blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
   - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit) needed by 
blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Fedora Server as router - Intel CPU
- No problems.

Fedora Server as router - RaspberryPi
- No problems.

Fedora Server as file server/imapl server/prometheus - Intel CPU
- No problems

Fedora KODI media player - Intel CPU
- No problems

Barry

[Sérgio Basto]

On Thu, 2024-03-07 at 10:27 +0000, Barry Scott wrote:
> On 21/02/2024 07:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --
> > enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> > --assumeno distro-sync
>
> Fedora KDE spin - Intel CPU AMD GPU -
>
> Error: 
>  Problem: problem with installed package blender-1:4.0.2-
> 1.fc39.x86_64
>   - blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit) needed by blender-
> 1:4.0.2-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

is the combination of 
Bug 2259558 - F40FailsToInstall: blender
Bug 2261013 - blender: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40
> Fedora Server as router - Intel CPU
> No problems.
>
> Fedora Server as router - RaspberryPi
> No problems.
>
> Fedora Server as file server/imapl server/prometheus - Intel CPU
> No problems
>
> Fedora KODI media player - Intel CPU
> No problems
>
> Barry
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Sérgio Basto]

On Thu, 2024-03-07 at 11:15 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-07 at 10:27 +0000, Barry Scott wrote:
> > On 21/02/2024 07:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > dnf --releasever=40 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f40 \
> > > --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> > > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --
> > > enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> > > --assumeno distro-sync
> >
> > Fedora KDE spin - Intel CPU AMD GPU -
> >
> > Error: 
> >  Problem: problem with installed package blender-1:4.0.2-
> > 1.fc39.x86_64
> >   - blender-1:4.0.2-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System  does not belong to
> > a distupgrade repository
> >   - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit) needed by blender-
> > 1:4.0.2-1.fc40.x86_64 from fedora
> > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
>
> is the combination of 
> Bug 2259558 - F40FailsToInstall: blender
> Bug 2261013 - blender: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40

Blender is FTBFS because :

DEBUG util.py:461: Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:461: Problem 1: package usd-devel-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64
requires libusd_ms.so.0.23.11()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package usd-devel-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64 requires
usd-libs(aarch-64) = 23.11-2.fc40, but none of the providers can be
installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides
libboost_python312.so.1.81.0()(64bit) needed by usd-libs-23.11-
2.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit)
needed by usd-libs-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides libdraco.so.8()(64bit) needed by
usd-libs-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:461: Problem 2: package openshadinglanguage-devel-
1.12.14.0-9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslquery.so.1.12()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-devel-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslexec.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-devel-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslcomp.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-devel-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslnoise.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-devel-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires libtestshade.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-devel-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires openshadinglanguage-libs(aarch-64) = 1.12.14.0-
9.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides
libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit) needed by openshadinglanguage-libs-
1.12.14.0-9.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:461: Problem 3: package OpenImageIO-devel-2.4.17.0-
1.fc40.aarch64 requires libOpenImageIO_Util.so.2.4()(64bit), but none
of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package OpenImageIO-devel-2.4.17.0-1.fc40.aarch64
requires libOpenImageIO.so.2.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package OpenImageIO-devel-2.4.17.0-1.fc40.aarch64
requires OpenImageIO(aarch-64) = 2.4.17.0-1.fc40, but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides
libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit) needed by OpenImageIO-2.4.17.0-
1.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit)
needed by OpenImageIO-2.4.17.0-1.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:461: Problem 4: package openshadinglanguage-common-
headers-1.12.14.0-9.fc40.noarch requires openshadinglanguage =
1.12.14.0-9.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslquery.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslexec.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - package openshadinglanguage-1.12.14.0-
9.fc40.aarch64 requires liboslcomp.so.1.12()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461: - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:461: - nothing provides
libboost_thread.so.1.81.0()(64bit) needed by openshadinglanguage-libs-
1.12.14.0-9.fc40.aarch64
DEBUG util.py:610: Child return code was: 1
DEBUG util.py:185: kill orphans in chroot /var/lib/mock/f40-build-
48392202-5759785/root
> > Fedora Server as router - Intel CPU
> > No problems.
> >
> > Fedora Server as router - RaspberryPi
> > No problems.
> >
> > Fedora Server as file server/imapl server/prometheus - Intel CPU
> > No problems
> >
> > Fedora KODI media player - Intel CPU
> > No problems
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> ect.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue