I've been seing this for several days now:
[pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo dnf update Last metadata expiration check: 1:27:54 ago on Tue Sep 13 19:00:42 2016. Dependencies resolved. ============================================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================================================================================== Installing: fpc-srpm-macros noarch 1.0-1.fc23 updates 7.8 k Upgrading: autocorr-en noarch 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 205 k curl x86_64 7.43.0-9.fc23 updates 285 k gnupg2 x86_64 2.1.13-2.fc23 updates 1.9 M google-chrome-stable x86_64 53.0.2785.101-1 google-chrome 47 M libcdio x86_64 0.93-8.fc23 updates 242 k libcurl x86_64 7.43.0-9.fc23 updates 257 k libgcrypt x86_64 1.6.6-1.fc23 updates 377 k libguestfs x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 1.9 M libguestfs-tools-c x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 3.4 M libksba x86_64 1.3.5-1.fc23 updates 129 k libmateweather x86_64 1.14.2-1.fc23 updates 71 k libmateweather-data noarch 1.14.2-1.fc23 updates 3.4 M libreoffice-calc x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 8.6 M libreoffice-core x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 74 M libreoffice-draw x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 684 k libreoffice-graphicfilter x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 451 k libreoffice-impress x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 1.3 M libreoffice-opensymbol-fonts noarch 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 247 k libreoffice-pdfimport x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 281 k libreoffice-pyuno x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 518 k libreoffice-ure x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 2.5 M libreoffice-writer x86_64 1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23 updates 4.3 M net-snmp-libs x86_64 1:5.7.3-13.fc23 updates 788 k nss x86_64 3.26.0-1.0.fc23 updates 849 k nss-softokn x86_64 3.26.0-1.0.fc23 updates 383 k nss-softokn-freebl x86_64 3.26.0-1.0.fc23 updates 222 k nss-sysinit x86_64 3.26.0-1.0.fc23 updates 58 k nss-tools x86_64 3.26.0-1.0.fc23 updates 496 k nss-util x86_64 3.26.0-1.0.fc23 updates 83 k perl-Module-CoreList noarch 1:5.20160820-1.fc23 updates 77 k python x86_64 2.7.11-10.fc23 updates 96 k python-devel x86_64 2.7.11-10.fc23 updates 399 k python-libs x86_64 2.7.11-10.fc23 updates 5.8 M python3-decorator noarch 4.0.10-3.fc23 updates 26 k redhat-rpm-config noarch 37-1.fc23.1 updates 59 k setroubleshoot x86_64 3.3.11-1.fc23 updates 136 k setroubleshoot-plugins noarch 3.3.6-1.fc23 updates 361 k setroubleshoot-server x86_64 3.3.11-1.fc23 updates 390 k Skipping packages with conflicts: (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade): gnupg2-smime x86_64 2.1.13-2.fc23 updates 406 k libguestfs-xfs x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 19 k pinentry x86_64 0.9.6-4.fc23 updates 81 k
Transaction Summary ============================================================================================================================================== Install 1 Package Upgrade 38 Packages Skip 3 Packages
Total download size: 162 M Is this ok [y/N]:
The odd thing is that none of the "problematic" packages -- gnupg2-smime, libguestfs-xfs, pinentry -- are installed.
I have install_weak_deps=false in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, so it shouldn't be trying to install weak dependencies.
Anyone know what the heck DNF is trying to do?
On 09/13/2016 06:33 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
The odd thing is that none of the "problematic" packages -- gnupg2-smime, libguestfs-xfs, pinentry -- are installed.
I have install_weak_deps=false in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, so it shouldn't be trying to install weak dependencies.
Anyone know what the heck DNF is trying to do?
Have you tried to add those options and see what dnf would try to do in that case?
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
On 09/13/2016 06:33 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
The odd thing is that none of the "problematic" packages -- gnupg2-smime, libguestfs-xfs, pinentry -- are installed.
the same it's written in summary that these package will be skipped (not upgraded). There are probably some conflicts between packages on your system or missing dependencies of not upgraded packages.
I have install_weak_deps=false in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, so it shouldn't be trying to install weak dependencies.
It has nothing to do with weak deps.
Anyone know what the heck DNF is trying to do?
Have you tried to add those options and see what dnf would try to do in that case?
please try what Samuel suggests (add "--best --allowerasing"). It should pull in these packages but will remove/downgrade some packages currently on your system. (proceed only if you want to)
Honza
On 09/14/2016 03:51 AM, Honza Silhan wrote:
please try what Samuel suggests (add "--best --allowerasing"). It should pull in these packages but will remove/downgrade some packages currently on your system. (proceed only if you want to)
After updating a bunch of unrelated packages, to simplify the output, here is what I am seeing:
[pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo dnf update Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:42 ago on Wed Sep 14 12:21:12 2016. Dependencies resolved. ==================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ==================================================================================================================== Upgrading: gnupg x86_64 1.4.21-1.fc23 updates 1.3 M gnupg2 x86_64 2.1.13-2.fc23 updates 1.9 M gnutls x86_64 3.4.15-1.fc23 updates 663 k gnutls-dane x86_64 3.4.15-1.fc23 updates 39 k gnutls-utils x86_64 3.4.15-1.fc23 updates 267 k libguestfs x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 1.9 M libguestfs-tools-c x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 3.4 M Skipping packages with conflicts: (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade): gnupg2-smime x86_64 2.1.13-2.fc23 updates 406 k libguestfs-xfs x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 19 k pinentry x86_64 0.9.6-4.fc23 updates 81 k trousers x86_64 0.3.13-5.fc23 fedora 151 k trousers-lib x86_64 0.3.13-5.fc23 fedora 158 k
Transaction Summary ==================================================================================================================== Upgrade 7 Packages Skip 5 Packages
Total download size: 9.4 M Is this ok [y/N]: n Operation aborted. [pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo dnf update --best --allowerasing Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:57 ago on Wed Sep 14 12:21:12 2016. Dependencies resolved. ==================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ==================================================================================================================== Upgrading: gnupg x86_64 1.4.21-1.fc23 updates 1.3 M gnupg2 x86_64 2.1.13-2.fc23 updates 1.9 M gnutls x86_64 3.4.15-1.fc23 updates 663 k gnutls-dane x86_64 3.4.15-1.fc23 updates 39 k gnutls-utils x86_64 3.4.15-1.fc23 updates 267 k libguestfs x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 1.9 M libguestfs-tools-c x86_64 1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates 3.4 M
Transaction Summary ==================================================================================================================== Upgrade 7 Packages
Total download size: 9.4 M Is this ok [y/N]: n Operation aborted.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which this output makes sense.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Samuel Sieb samuel@sieb.net wrote:
On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which this output makes sense.
I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it drops them from the attempt.
"--best" should always pull them in the highest version.
It seems more like bug in DNF if the upgrade set is the same with switches and without. Can you please report the bug and attach the debugdata [1] for transaction with "--best --allowerasing" and without them?
Thanks. Honza
[1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/wiki/Bug-Reporting#dependency...
On 09/14/2016 01:28 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which this output makes sense.
I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it drops them from the attempt.
But why is it trying to include them in the first place? There are no older versions of those packages installed, and they're not dependencies of the packages that are being updated.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Ian Pilcher arequipeno@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/14/2016 01:28 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which this output makes sense.
I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it drops them from the attempt.
But why is it trying to include them in the first place? There are no older versions of those packages installed, and they're not dependencies of the packages that are being updated.
That's why I requested the debugdata so we know exact dependencies and your system state where you can reproduce the problem ;). It shows updating + skipped section together and should show all packages that could be updated (like output of check-upgrade).
Honza
On 09/19/2016 03:52 AM, Honza Silhan wrote:
That's why I requested the debugdata so we know exact dependencies and your system state where you can reproduce the problem ;). It shows updating + skipped section together and should show all packages that could be updated (like output of check-upgrade).
I was going to file a bug with the requested data, then I read this:
Note: these bugs will have default priority set to low as it's in 95% not a DNF bug and wastes only time of DNF developers.
-
Honza Silhan -
Ian Pilcher -
Samuel Sieb