Continuing dnf weirdness

[Ian Pilcher]

Can anyone explain this output?

http://pastebin.com/1xtjpB5s

I.e. why is dnf complaining about broken dependencies in
libreoffice-gtk2 and libreoffice-x11 when neither package is installed
or required by any of the updates being installed?

[Samuel Sieb]

On 11/25/2016 08:42 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> Can anyone explain this output?
>
> http://pastebin.com/1xtjpB5s
>
> I.e. why is dnf complaining about broken dependencies in
> libreoffice-gtk2 and libreoffice-x11 when neither package is installed
> or required by any of the updates being installed?

I don't have F25 installed anywhere yet, but from something I've seen 
mentioned on one of the lists, dnf currently prints that message for 
weak dependencies.  And libreoffice-x11 is a weak dependency of 
libreoffice-core.  So this is not a problem and will be corrected soon.

[Ian Pilcher]

On 11/25/2016 03:43 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I don't have F25 installed anywhere yet, but from something I've seen
> mentioned on one of the lists, dnf currently prints that message for
> weak dependencies.  And libreoffice-x11 is a weak dependency of
> libreoffice-core.  So this is not a problem and will be corrected soon.

That does sound like a plausible cause.  The weird thing is that I
already have install_weak_deps=false in dnf.conf, and it doesn't look
like there's any separate setting for updates.

So it *shouldn't* be trying to install weak dependencies.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:29 AM Ian Pilcher  wrote:
> That does sound like a plausible cause.  The weird thing is that I
> already have install_weak_deps=false in dnf.conf, and it doesn't look
> like there's any separate setting for updates.
>
> So it *shouldn't* be trying to install weak dependencies.

Might be worth getting the debugging info and reporting a bug

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/wiki/Bug-Reporting

Rahul

[Ian Pilcher]

On 11/27/2016 08:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Might be worth getting the debugging info and reporting a bug
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/wiki/Bug-Reporting

Or not:

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.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 11/28/2016 10:41 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 11/27/2016 08:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Might be worth getting the debugging info and reporting a bug
> >
> > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/wiki/Bug-Reporting
>
> Or not:
>
> 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.

Why do you think that?  This is definitely a dnf bug.  But in this case, 
there's no need to report it as it has already been fixed in a future 
version.

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...

"
afaik these are weak dependencies, that are not installed (by policy),
dnf 2.0 reports them without the confusing "conflicts"
"

[Samuel Sieb]

On 11/27/2016 08:28 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 03:43 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > I don't have F25 installed anywhere yet, but from something I've seen
> > mentioned on one of the lists, dnf currently prints that message for
> > weak dependencies.  And libreoffice-x11 is a weak dependency of
> > libreoffice-core.  So this is not a problem and will be corrected soon.
>
> That does sound like a plausible cause.  The weird thing is that I
> already have install_weak_deps=false in dnf.conf, and it doesn't look
> like there's any separate setting for updates.
>
> So it *shouldn't* be trying to install weak dependencies.

It's not trying to install them, I think it's just a confusing message 
that they are there.  This has been fixed in dnf 2.0.