Bug 1016169

Summary: Monotone upgrade to fedora 20 fails because botan doesn't exist in fedora 20 repo
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: io <iozkaymak>
Component: monotoneAssignee: Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 20CC: andy2.0, thomas.moschny
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-10-08 17:38:34 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description io 2013-10-07 16:09:52 UTC
Description of problem:
While upgrading distro from 19 to 20 Alpha, I realized that some packages in 20 20 Alpha doesn't have botan.
Please see below:

Error: Package: monotone-1.0-11.fc19.x86_64 (@fedora/19)
           Requires: libbotan-1.8.2.so()(64bit)
           Removing: botan-1.8.14-2.fc19.x86_64 (@fedora/19)
               libbotan-1.8.2.so()(64bit)
           Updated By: botan-1.10.5-4.fc20.x86_64 (fedora)
               Not found


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
20

How reproducible:
Have Fedora 19 distro rawhide, never moved to final release.
Trying to upgrade to 20 alpha.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum --releasever=20 distro-sync

Actual results:
Failure to upgrade because of dependencies

Expected results:
Successful upgrade

Additional info:

[root@ioFedora ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release 
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)

[root@ioFedora ~]# uname -a
Linux ioFedora 3.11.3-201.fc19.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Oct 3 00:47:03 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Comment 1 Thomas Moschny 2013-10-08 17:32:00 UTC
This is a monotone problem, (albeit caused by a version botan upgrade).

Working on it.

Comment 2 Thomas Moschny 2013-10-08 17:34:05 UTC
*** Bug 1016765 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Thomas Moschny 2013-10-08 17:38:34 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 985750 ***