f29 : net-install error - anyone successful?

[Adrian Sevcenco]

Hi! It would seem that there is a bug in f29 net-install ..
The installer breaks with :
dnf.exceptions.TransactionCheckError: sssd-common < 2.0.0-5.f29 
conflicts with sssd-nfs-idmap-2.0.0-5.f29.x86_64

Does anyone have an idea about it?
Thank you!
Adrian

[stan]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 10:14:13 +0200
Adrian Sevcenco  wrote:
> Hi! It would seem that there is a bug in f29 net-install ..
> The installer breaks with :
> dnf.exceptions.TransactionCheckError: sssd-common < 2.0.0-5.f29 
> conflicts with sssd-nfs-idmap-2.0.0-5.f29.x86_64
>
> Does anyone have an idea about it?

Is this just with the basic install and no package install from
the network? That is, are you using only the packages on the
CD/DVD/USB? If so, that would be a bug in the f29 net-install ISO.
Otherwise, you could just do the  basic netinstall, then boot into it
and do the dnf install of other packages as normal.  Then it would just
be a package conflict, and skip-broken would skip it.

If it is a broken install image, you should bugzilla it at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
I think the images are checked as part of the release process so this
shouldn't be true, but that is done by volunteers so it might not have
been checked.

[Adrian Sevcenco]

On 2/23/19 6:49 PM, stan via users wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 10:14:13 +0200
> Adrian Sevcenco  wrote:
> > Hi! It would seem that there is a bug in f29 net-install ..
> > The installer breaks with :
> > dnf.exceptions.TransactionCheckError: sssd-common < 2.0.0-5.f29
> > conflicts with sssd-nfs-idmap-2.0.0-5.f29.x86_64
> >
> > Does anyone have an idea about it?
>
> Is this just with the basic install and no package install from
> the network? That is, are you using only the packages on the
> CD/DVD/USB? If so, that would be a bug in the f29 net-install ISO.

no, i mirror the fedora repo and use all packages from there
(fedora/releases/29/Everything/x86_64/os)
> Otherwise, you could just do the  basic netinstall, then boot into it
> and do the dnf install of other packages as normal.  Then it would just
> be a package conflict, and skip-broken would skip it.

well, i commented out the fedora-update repo and the install worked ..
so, i would say that it is a bug as i would expect that the update 
repository to be compatible with the install image
> If it is a broken install image, you should bugzilla it at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/

yup, i submitted trough the included mechanism from anaconda
> I think the images are checked as part of the release process so this
> shouldn't be true, but that is done by volunteers so it might not have
> been checked.

well, i would say that always a net install should be checked with 
update repository enabled...

thanks!
adrian

[stan]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:55:14 +0200
Adrian Sevcenco  wrote:
> On 2/23/19 6:49 PM, stan via users wrote:
> > Otherwise, you could just do the  basic netinstall, then boot into
> > it and do the dnf install of other packages as normal.  Then it
> > would just be a package conflict, and skip-broken would skip it.
>
> well, i commented out the fedora-update repo and the install worked ..
> so, i would say that it is a bug as i would expect that the update 
> repository to be compatible with the install image

The update repo changes with time while the install image doesn't.
> > If it is a broken install image, you should bugzilla it at
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
>
> yup, i submitted trough the included mechanism from anaconda

Probably going to be closed as notabug because they can't fix it.  It
is just the way fedora works.
> > I think the images are checked as part of the release process so
> > this shouldn't be true, but that is done by volunteers so it might
> > not have been checked.
>
> well, i would say that always a net install should be checked with 
> update repository enabled...

It might have at freeze time, but the update repo changes constantly.
The fedora repo is frozen when the release is frozen, so that it works
with the released image, as you discovered.

The inconsistency you ran into is not uncommon with regular dnf updates.

Glad you got it worked out.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 2/23/19 12:14 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
> Hi! It would seem that there is a bug in f29 net-install ..
> The installer breaks with :
> dnf.exceptions.TransactionCheckError: sssd-common < 2.0.0-5.f29 
> conflicts with sssd-nfs-idmap-2.0.0-5.f29.x86_64

It looks like you got an out of date mirror or some other package is 
holding it back.  Did "dnf update" work after you did the install 
without updates?