openvas install

[Frederic Muller]

HI!

Just trying to install openvas on Fedora and getting this:
sudo dnf install openvas-gsa
Last metadata expiration check: 2:24:25 ago on Sun 05 Apr 2020 02:22:38
PM +07.
Error:
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides libopenvas_base.so.9()(64bit) needed by
openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
  - nothing provides libopenvas_misc.so.9()(64bit) needed by
openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
  - nothing provides libopenvas_omp.so.9()(64bit) needed by
openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Did a few google searches but didn't find any solution. Any idea what
I'm missing or eventually should I report a bug against the package?

Thank you.

Fred

[George N. White III]

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 06:59, Frederic Muller  wrote:
> HI!
>
> Just trying to install openvas on Fedora and getting this:
> sudo dnf install openvas-gsa
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:24:25 ago on Sun 05 Apr 2020 02:22:38
> PM +07.
> Error:
>  Problem: conflicting requests
> nothing provides libopenvas_base.so.9()(64bit) needed by
>
> openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
> nothing provides libopenvas_misc.so.9()(64bit) needed by
>
> openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
> nothing provides libopenvas_omp.so.9()(64bit) needed by
>
> openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> Did a few google searches but didn't find any solution. Any idea what
> I'm missing or eventually should I report a bug against the package?

Already noted (and first hit in my Google search):
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...

Hi.

On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 08:53:46 -0300 "George N. White III" wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 06:59, Frederic Muller  wrote:
> > sudo dnf install openvas-gsa
> > Error:
> >  Problem: conflicting requests
> > nothing provides libopenvas_base.so.9()(64bit) needed by
> >
> > openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64

...
> Already noted (and first hit in my Google search):
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...

And still failing since September.

As a temporary turnaround it seems that you can install the fc30
version (not fully tested):

sudo dnf --releasever=30 install openvas-gsa

[Frederic Muller]

On 4/5/20 8:14 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 08:53:46 -0300 "George N. White III" wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 06:59, Frederic Muller  wrote:
> > > sudo dnf install openvas-gsa
> > > Error:
> > >  Problem: conflicting requests
> > > nothing provides libopenvas_base.so.9()(64bit) needed by
> > >
> > > openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
>
> ...
> > Already noted (and first hit in my Google search):
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...
>
> And still failing since September.
>
> As a temporary turnaround it seems that you can install the fc30
> version (not fully tested):
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 install openvas-gsa

Hi!

Thank you for the answers. Didn't find that 1st link George mentioned,
and reading it quickly didn't really get what to do. I'll look into it
deeper probably tomorrow. Now doing the --releasever=30 gives me this
initially:

Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'updates-modular':
  - Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match
like 3 times.

A second attempt seemed to work but is downgrading git, foomatic and a
lot of other perl packages.

Still downloading at this stage but wanted to say thank you and
hopefully everything will be running tomorrow.

Now should I file a bug for F31 or not?

Thank you for your recommendations.

Fred

[George N. White III]

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 10:40, Frederic Muller  wrote:
> On 4/5/20 8:14 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 08:53:46 -0300 "George N. White III" wrote:
> > > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 06:59, Frederic Muller  wrote:
> > > > sudo dnf install openvas-gsa
> > > > Error:
> > > >  Problem: conflicting requests
> > > > nothing provides libopenvas_base.so.9()(64bit) needed by
> > > >
> > > > openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
> >
> > ...
> > > Already noted (and first hit in my Google search):
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...
> > And still failing since September.

Maintainer probably has other priorities or has lost interest.  This could
indicate that there is now something better (for the maintainer's use
case),
have a look at https://alternativeto.net/software/openvas/ and
https://linuxsecurity.expert/tools/openvas/
https://linuxsecurity.expert/tools/openvas/alternatives/ .  Openvas is
sort of a jack of
all trades, so there may be another tools that is better for your use case.
> As a temporary turnaround it seems that you can install the fc30
> > version (not fully tested):
> >
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 install openvas-gsa
>
> Hi!
>
> Thank you for the answers. Didn't find that 1st link George mentioned,
> and reading it quickly didn't really get what to do. I'll look into it
> deeper probably tomorrow. Now doing the --releasever=30 gives me this
> initially:
>
> Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'updates-modular':
> Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match
>
> like 3 times.
>
> A second attempt seemed to work but is downgrading git, foomatic and a
> lot of other perl packages.
>
> Still downloading at this stage but wanted to say thank you and
> hopefully everything will be running tomorrow.
>
> Now should I file a bug for F31 or not?

Have you checked bugzilla and the openvas site?  If anyone other than
you uses openvas there may already be a bug report with some indication
of the underlying issues.  If you decide you need openvas it would be
useful
to try either building it directly from source or building your own rpms so
you
can document the problems in your bug report.  Depending on the nature of
the problem you may find it better to file a bug report with the upstream
developer.

[Frederic Muller]

On 4/5/20 9:16 PM, George N. White III wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 10:40, Frederic Muller <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
> On 4/5/20 8:14 PM, [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Apr 2020 08:53:46 -0300 "George N. White III" wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 06:59, Frederic Muller <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>> sudo dnf install openvas-gsa
> >>> Error:
> >>>  Problem: conflicting requests
> >>>   - nothing provides libopenvas_base.so.9()(64bit) needed by
> >>>  openvas-gsa-7.0.3-10.fc31.x86_64
> > ...
> >> Already noted (and first hit in my Google search):
> >>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/thread/QPAAF7E7MH2W2ZIAIKP7BGPO4RQOH7K3/
> > And still failing since September.
> >
>
>
> Maintainer probably has other priorities or has lost interest.  This
> could 
> indicate that there is now something better (for the maintainer's use
> case), 
> have a look at https://alternativeto.net/software/openvas/%C2%A0and%C2%A0
> https://linuxsecurity.expert/tools/openvas/
> https://linuxsecurity.expert/tools/openvas/alternatives/ .  Openvas
> is sort of a jack of 
> all trades, so there may be another tools that is better for your use
> case.
> > As a temporary turnaround it seems that you can install the fc30
> > version (not fully tested):
> >
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 install openvas-gsa
> >
> Hi!
>
> Thank you for the answers. Didn't find that 1st link George mentioned,
> and reading it quickly didn't really get what to do. I'll look into it
> deeper probably tomorrow. Now doing the --releasever=30 gives me this
> initially:
>
> Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'updates-modular':
>   - Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match
> like 3 times.
>
> A second attempt seemed to work but is downgrading git, foomatic and a
> lot of other perl packages.
>
> Still downloading at this stage but wanted to say thank you and
> hopefully everything will be running tomorrow.
>
> Now should I file a bug for F31 or not?
>
>
> Have you checked bugzilla and the openvas site?  If anyone other than 
> you uses openvas there may already be a bug report with some indication 
> of the underlying issues.  If you decide you need openvas it would be
> useful 
> to try either building it directly from source or building your own
> rpms so you 
> can document the problems in your bug report.  Depending on the nature of 
> the problem you may find it better to file a bug report with the upstream 
> developer.    
>  
> -- 
> George N. White III

Dear George,

Following Jerry's post about it I did add a comment to the existing bug.
I might also try to compile from source and see what it gives.

Thank you again for the support.

Fred

[Jerry James]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 7:40 AM Frederic Muller  wrote:
> Now should I file a bug for F31 or not?

There appears to be a bug already:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767800

Adding a comment there that you are still having the problem is
entirely appropriate.