tigervnc won't remove

[ToddAndMargo]

Hi All,

How do I fix this?

Many thanks,
-T

# rpm -qa tiger*
tigervnc-license-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
tigervnc-icons-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
tigervnc-1.13.1-6.fc38.x86_64

# dnf remove tigervnc-1.13.1-6.fc38.x86_64 
tigervnc-icons-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch tigervnc-license-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch

Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 61, in <module>
     from dnf.cli import main
   File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dnf/__init__.py", line 30, in 
<module>
     import dnf.base
   File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 29, in 
<module>
     import libdnf.transaction
   File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libdnf/__init__.py", line 
14, in <module>
     from . import conf
   File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libdnf/conf.py", line 10, 
in <module>
     from . import _conf
ImportError: librpm.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file 
or directory

[Joe Zeff]

On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> How do I fix this?

You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the no-longer 
needed dependencies.

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/14/23 16:16, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> How do I fix this?
>
> Many thanks,
> -T
>
> # rpm -qa tiger*
> tigervnc-license-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
> tigervnc-icons-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
> tigervnc-1.13.1-6.fc38.x86_64
>
> # dnf remove tigervnc-1.13.1-6.fc38.x86_64 
> tigervnc-icons-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch tigervnc-license-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>    File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 61, in <module>
>      from dnf.cli import main
>    File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dnf/__init__.py", line 30, in
>
> <module>
>      import dnf.base
>    File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 29, in 
> <module>
>      import libdnf.transaction
>    File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libdnf/__init__.py", line 
> 14, in <module>
>      from . import conf
>    File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libdnf/conf.py", line 10, 
> in <module>
>      from . import _conf
> ImportError: librpm.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file 
> or directory

Seems like this is a nnf issue.  This give the same
output:

# dnf whatprovides libplist

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > How do I fix this?
>
> You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the no-longer 
> needed dependencies.

dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/14/23 16:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> On 11/14/23 16:16, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > How do I fix this?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> > -T
> >
> > # rpm -qa tiger*
> > tigervnc-license-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
> > tigervnc-icons-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
> > tigervnc-1.13.1-6.fc38.x86_64
> >
> > # dnf remove tigervnc-1.13.1-6.fc38.x86_64 
> > tigervnc-icons-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch tigervnc-license-1.13.1-6.fc38.noarch
> >
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >    File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 61, in <module>
> >      from dnf.cli import main
> >    File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dnf/__init__.py", line 30, 
> > in <module>
> >      import dnf.base
> >    File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 29, in
> >
> > <module>
> >      import libdnf.transaction
> >    File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libdnf/__init__.py", line 
> > 14, in <module>
> >      from . import conf
> >    File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libdnf/conf.py", line 10, 
> > in <module>
> >      from . import _conf
> > ImportError: librpm.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file 
> > or directory
>
> Seems like this is a nnf issue.  This give the same
> output:
>
> # dnf whatprovides libplist

I removed tigervnc with rpm.  Now I am trying to fix dnf

[Roger Heflin]

lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     15 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
librpm.so.9.4.0
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0

so
cd /usr/lib64
ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9

Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there.   But if that link is
missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
also gone.

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
 wrote:
> On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > How do I fix this?
> >
> > You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the no-longer
> > needed dependencies.
>
> dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
> _______________________________________________
> users 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

[ToddAndMargo]

> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
>  wrote:
> > On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > > On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > > How do I fix this?
> > >
> > > You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the no-longer
> > > needed dependencies.
> >
> > dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.

On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     15 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
> librpm.so.9.4.0
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
>
> so
> cd /usr/lib64
> ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
>
> Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there.   But if that link is
> missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
> also gone.

# ls -al librpm.so*
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 -> librpm.so.10.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0

Hmmmmmmm ...

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/14/23 18:47, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
> >  wrote:
> > > On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > > > On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > > > How do I fix this?
> > > >
> > > > You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the 
> > > > no-longer
> > > > needed dependencies.
> > >
> > > dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
>
> On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     15 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
> > librpm.so.9.4.0
> > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> >
> > so
> > cd /usr/lib64
> > ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
> >
> > Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there.   But if that link is
> > missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
> > also gone.
>
> # ls -al librpm.so*
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 -> 
> librpm.so.10.0.0
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0
>
> Hmmmmmmm ...

Okay,

I got dnf to work again with the following:

/usr/lib64# ln -s librpmio.so.10.0.0 librpmio.so.9
/usr/lib64# ln -s librpm.so.10.0.0 librpm.so.9

Now how do I fix it right?

Just posted:
    dnf looking for outdated librpmio and librpm
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249732

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/14/23 19:06, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> On 11/14/23 18:47, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > > > > On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > > > > How do I fix this?
> > > > >
> > > > > You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the 
> > > > > no-longer
> > > > > needed dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
> >
> > On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
> >  > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     15 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
> >  > librpm.so.9.4.0
> >  > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> >  >
> >  > so
> >  > cd /usr/lib64
> >  > ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
> >  >
> >  > Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there.   But if that link is
> >  > missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
> >  > also gone.
> >  >
> >
> > # ls -al librpm.so*
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 -> 
> > librpm.so.10.0.0
> > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0
> >
> > Hmmmmmmm ...
>
> Okay,
>
> I got dnf to work again with the following:
>
> /usr/lib64# ln -s librpmio.so.10.0.0 librpmio.so.9
> /usr/lib64# ln -s librpm.so.10.0.0 librpm.so.9
>
> Now how do I fix it right?
>
> Just posted:
>     dnf looking for outdated librpmio and librpm
>     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249732

dnf was still on FC38.

The real fix:

# dnf upgrade dnf  --releasever=39

Failed on its ....

# dnf upgrade   --releasever=39

3000+ file later,

# dnf upgrade dnf  --releasever=39 --best --allowerasing

273 files later, and

# rpm -qa dnf
dnf-4.18.1-1.fc39.noarch

Fixed

[Roger Heflin]

It would have to be some sort of package problem.   Unless something
specifically deleted that so.9 link (which seems unlikely).

Clearly dnf thinks it needs so.9 but you only have so.10

I just upgraded my fc38 machine and have so.9 and this rpm version.

What fedora version do you have and what rpm do you have?

rpm -qa --filesbypkg | grep -i librpm.so
rpm-libs                  /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9
rpm-libs                  /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
rpm -qa | grep -i rpm-libs
rpm-libs-4.18.1-3.fc38.x86_64

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:07 PM ToddAndMargo via users
 wrote:
> On 11/14/23 18:47, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > > > > On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > > > > How do I fix this?
> > > > >
> > > > > You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the
> > > > > no-longer
> > > > > needed dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
> >
> > On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     15 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
> > > librpm.so.9.4.0
> > > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> > >
> > > so
> > > cd /usr/lib64
> > > ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
> > >
> > > Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there.   But if that link is
> > > missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
> > > also gone.
> >
> > # ls -al librpm.so*
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 ->
> > librpm.so.10.0.0
> > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0
> >
> > Hmmmmmmm ...
>
> Okay,
>
> I got dnf to work again with the following:
>
> /usr/lib64# ln -s librpmio.so.10.0.0 librpmio.so.9
> /usr/lib64# ln -s librpm.so.10.0.0 librpm.so.9
>
> Now how do I fix it right?
>
> Just posted:
>     dnf looking for outdated librpmio and librpm
>     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249732
>
> users 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

[ToddAndMargo]

> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:07 PM ToddAndMargo via users
>  wrote:
> > On 11/14/23 18:47, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:40 PM ToddAndMargo via users
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > On 11/14/23 16:37, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > > > > > On 11/14/2023 05:16 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do I fix this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You might try just removing tigervnc and letting it remove the
> > > > > > no-longer
> > > > > > needed dependencies.
> > > > >
> > > > > dnf is giving me the same output for any command I give it.
> > >
> > > On 11/14/23 17:19, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     15 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9 ->
> > > > librpm.so.9.4.0
> > > > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 551368 Apr 24  2023 /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> > > >
> > > > so
> > > > cd /usr/lib64
> > > > ln -s librpm.so.9.4.0 librpm.so.9
> > > >
> > > > Assuming the librpm.so.9.4.0 is still there.   But if that link is
> > > > missing there is a decent chance that other links and/or files are
> > > > also gone.
> > >
> > > # ls -al librpm.so*
> > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     16 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10 ->
> > > librpm.so.10.0.0
> > > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 563032 Sep 18 17:00 librpm.so.10.0.0
> > >
> > > Hmmmmmmm ...
> >
> > Okay,
> >
> > I got dnf to work again with the following:
> >
> > /usr/lib64# ln -s librpmio.so.10.0.0 librpmio.so.9
> > /usr/lib64# ln -s librpm.so.10.0.0 librpm.so.9
> >
> > Now how do I fix it right?
> >
> > Just posted:
> >      dnf looking for outdated librpmio and librpm
> >      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249732

On 11/15/23 08:02, Roger Heflin wrote:
> It would have to be some sort of package problem.   Unless something
> specifically deleted that so.9 link (which seems unlikely).
>
> Clearly dnf thinks it needs so.9 but you only have so.10
>
> I just upgraded my fc38 machine and have so.9 and this rpm version.
>
> What fedora version do you have and what rpm do you have?
>
> rpm -qa --filesbypkg | grep -i librpm.so
> rpm-libs                  /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9
> rpm-libs                  /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> rpm -qa | grep -i rpm-libs
> rpm-libs-4.18.1-3.fc38.x86_64

I had the same as you until today when I did a `dnf upgrade`.
Then all hell broke loose and librpmio and librpm got upgraded
to 10.

[Barry Scott]

> On 15 Nov 2023, at 16:18, ToddAndMargo via users  wrote:
>
> I had the same as you until today when I did a `dnf upgrade`.
> Then all hell broke loose and librpmio and librpm got upgraded
> to 10.

On my f38 system there is no .10

# dnf install /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10
Last metadata expiration check: 3:43:48 ago on Wed 15 Nov 2023 13:16:33 GMT.
No match for argument: /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10
Error: Unable to find a match: /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10

What do you get when you do the following commands:

rpm -ql rpm-libs
dnf list installed rpm-libs

This is what I see:

[root@armf38 ~]# rpm -ql rpm-libs
/usr/lib/.build-id
/usr/lib/.build-id/1a
/usr/lib/.build-id/1a/eb222329842e6fb62cf39efa961713445a579e
/usr/lib/.build-id/7b
/usr/lib/.build-id/7b/c93dcd84e2911ac9ce66e44543f2ece1d30a53
/usr/lib64/librpm.so.9
/usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
/usr/lib64/librpmio.so.9
/usr/lib64/librpmio.so.9.4.0
/usr/lib64/rpm-plugins
[root@armf38 ~]# dnf list installed rpm-libs
Installed Packages
rpm-libs.aarch64                        4.18.1-3.fc38                        @updates
[root@armf38 ~]#

I am especially interested in the repo that your .so.10 came from.
My .so.9 came from @updates.

Barry

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 12:04 PM Barry Scott  wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2023, at 16:18, ToddAndMargo via users  wrote:
>
> I had the same as you until today when I did a `dnf upgrade`.
> Then all hell broke loose and librpmio and librpm got upgraded
> to 10.
>
> On my f38 system there is no .10
>
> # dnf install /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10
> Last metadata expiration check: 3:43:48 ago on Wed 15 Nov 2023 13:16:33 GMT.
> No match for argument: /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10
> Error: Unable to find a match: /usr/lib64/librpm.so.10
>
> What do you get when you do the following commands:
>
> rpm -ql rpm-libs
> dnf list installed rpm-libs
>
> This is what I see:
>
> [root@armf38 ~]# rpm -ql rpm-libs
> /usr/lib/.build-id
> /usr/lib/.build-id/1a
> /usr/lib/.build-id/1a/eb222329842e6fb62cf39efa961713445a579e
> /usr/lib/.build-id/7b
> /usr/lib/.build-id/7b/c93dcd84e2911ac9ce66e44543f2ece1d30a53
> /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9
> /usr/lib64/librpm.so.9.4.0
> /usr/lib64/librpmio.so.9
> /usr/lib64/librpmio.so.9.4.0
> /usr/lib64/rpm-plugins
> [root@armf38 ~]# dnf list installed rpm-libs
> Installed Packages
> rpm-libs.aarch64                        4.18.1-3.fc38                        @updates
> [root@armf38 ~]#
>
> I am especially interested in the repo that your .so.10 came from.
> My .so.9 came from @updates.

`dnf repolist enabled` may be helpful:

$ dnf repolist enabled
   repo id                        repo name
   fedora                         Fedora 39 - x86_64
   fedora-cisco-openh264          Fedora 39 OpenH264 (from Cisco) - x86_64
   updates                        Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates

But it looks like they are stock in F39:

$ dnf whatprovides 'librpmio.so*'
   rpm-libs-4.19.0-1.fc39.i686 : Libraries for manipulating RPM packages
   Repo        : fedora
   Matched from:
   Provide    : librpmio.so.10

rpm-libs-4.19.0-1.fc39.x86_64 : Libraries for manipulating RPM packages
   Repo        : @System
   Matched from:
   Provide    : librpmio.so.10()(64bit)

rpm-libs-4.19.0-1.fc39.x86_64 : Libraries for manipulating RPM packages
   Repo        : fedora
   Matched from:
   Provide    : librpmio.so.10()(64bit)

Jeff

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/15/23 10:28, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> `dnf repolist enabled` may be helpful:
> $ dnf repolist enabled
> repo id                        repo name
> fedora                         Fedora 39 - x86_64
> fedora-cisco-openh264          Fedora 39 OpenH264 (from Cisco) - x86_64
> updates                        Fedora 39 - x86_64 - Updates
>
> But it looks like they are stock in F39:
> $ dnf whatprovides 'librpmio.so*'
> rpm-libs-4.19.0-1.fc39.i686 : Libraries for manipulating RPM packages
> Repo        : fedora
> Matched from:
> Provide    : librpmio.so.10
>
> rpm-libs-4.19.0-1.fc39.x86_64 : Libraries for manipulating RPM packages
> Repo        : @System
> Matched from:
> Provide    : librpmio.so.10()(64bit)
>
> rpm-libs-4.19.0-1.fc39.x86_64 : Libraries for manipulating RPM packages
> Repo        : fedora
> Matched from:
> Provide    : librpmio.so.10()(64bit)
>
> Jeff

Keep in mind that

dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=39

failed to update me to the fc39 version of dnf.  When
I forced the issue, things worked fine.  But first
I had to get dnf working, which is why the 9--> 10 links.

Download grade to fc38 version of dnf before running all
your tests

[ToddAndMargo]

On 11/15/23 09:03, Barry Scott wrote:
> What do you get when you do the following commands:
>
> rpm -ql rpm-libs
> dnf list installed rpm-libs

I am on FC39 now and I forced updated dnf to
the fc39 version

$ rpm -ql rpm-libs
/usr/lib/.build-id
/usr/lib/.build-id/a8
/usr/lib/.build-id/a8/ad83daa16d97f5c842e86a70f9e51cbe02094f
/usr/lib/.build-id/ec
/usr/lib/.build-id/ec/1c5daeb02d49221df9e4c206be1825dc361f4a
/usr/lib64/librpm.so.10
/usr/lib64/librpm.so.10.0.0
/usr/lib64/librpmio.so.10
/usr/lib64/librpmio.so.10.0.0
/usr/lib64/rpm-plugins

~$ dnf list installed rpm-libs
Installed Packages
rpm-libs.x86_64                      4.19.0-1.fc39
@fedora

Are you running the ARM version of fedora?