Bug 1148630
| Summary: | add --allowerasing hint for conflict problems | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rahul Sundaram <metherid> | ||||||||
| Component: | dnf | Assignee: | Honza Silhan <jsilhan> | ||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||||||
| Version: | 22 | CC: | akozumpl, bruno, jsilhan, jskarvad, jzeleny, kparal, pnemade, rholy, tim.lauridsen | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | dnf-1.0.2-3.fc22 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2015-08-11 02:08:14 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: | |||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Rahul Sundaram
2014-10-01 22:59:32 UTC
--allowerasing and --refresh is documented in the man page in dnf 0.6.x (F21) hinting --allowerasing can be nice, but also dangerous, sometime people will just use the hinted option without understanding what it does. And in this case it will remove yum and everything there is requiring yum and bad thing in F20 see the lastes version of man pages here: http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html Good that it got documented now. Well, it won't be very dangerous if protected packages were still supported but that is an argument that doesn't seem to have convinced dnf developers yet. if dnf-plugins-core is installed, then the protected_packages plugin will protect the packages definded in /etc/yum/protected.d & /etc/dnf/protected.d So protected packages are supported if the distro want it to be :) Rahul, --allowerasing is documented all the time the the switch is available. It's almost a year today. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/commit/c9150287acdbe10f6033ddea20fcaedfa06624f9 The same applies for the --refresh. It's about 4 months. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/commit/8ccf18eceff8327f00854cdb6454db8ee1f605dc If dnf developers will not object, I will send in a comps patch to get dnf-plugins-core be a default package @Radek, I am not sure how I missed it. Do consider adding in a hint to use it in cases where it helps. Rahul, having dnf-plugins-core by default would be great. We could add that hint for conflict errors, many people report bugs that could be solved by this flag. So I clone the comps git repo and I see that dnf hasn't been added yet as a default package in the f-22 file. Are you folks still targeting f22 as the release where dnf becomes default? Are you waiting for anything in particular before making this change? There are a whole bunch of packages that are still depending on yum including mock, fedora-packager etc Yes, DNF should be in F22. Lets wait for confirmation of jzeleny (if there are some news I don't know). Nothing has changed, DNF is still supposed to become default software manager in F22 Created attachment 944212 [details]
changes to make dnf default
Comps patch for the necessary changes. I am leaving yum in the build group just because mock hasn't been ported over yet. Rest should be self evident. Please review before I commit. Thanks Created attachment 944213 [details]
revised changes to make dnf default
Created attachment 944216 [details]
revised and sorted changes to make dnf default
Rahul, looks good, thanks. Pushed. *** Bug 1160659 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle. Changing version to '22'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22 The same hint should be provided for downgrading. Example: $ sudo dnf downgrade abrt Last metadata expiration check performed 1:31:33 ago on Mon Jun 22 12:58:02 2015. Error: package abrt-retrace-client-2.6.0-1.fc22.x86_64 requires abrt = 2.6.0-1.fc22, but none of the providers can be installed The obvious thing to do is: $ sudo dnf downgrade abrt* Last metadata expiration check performed 1:31:36 ago on Mon Jun 22 12:58:02 2015. No match for available package: abrt-addon-python-2.5.1-2.fc22.x86_64 No match for available package: abrt-python3-2.5.1-2.fc22.x86_64 No match for available package: abrt-gui-libs-2.5.1-2.fc22.i686 No match for available package: abrt-gui-libs-2.5.1-2.fc22.x86_64 No match for available package: abrt-tui-2.5.1-2.fc22.x86_64 No match for available package: abrt-gui-2.5.1-2.fc22.x86_64 ... snip 100 lines ... No match for available package: abrt-libs-2.6.0-1.fc22.x86_64 No match for available package: abrt-atomic-2.6.0-1.fc22.x86_64 No match for available package: abrt-retrace-client-2.6.0-1.fc22.x86_64 Error: Nothing to do. And I was utterly confused how to downgrade abrt. The solution was: $ sudo dnf downgrade abrt --allowerasing Last metadata expiration check performed 1:51:32 ago on Mon Jun 22 12:58:02 2015. Dependencies resolved. ========================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ========================================================================== Removing: abrt-desktop x86_64 2.6.0-1.fc22 @System 0 abrt-gui x86_64 2.6.0-1.fc22 @System 222 k Downgrading: abrt x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 516 k abrt-addon-ccpp x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 184 k abrt-addon-coredump-helper x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 102 k abrt-addon-kerneloops x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 120 k abrt-addon-pstoreoops x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 98 k abrt-addon-python x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 99 k abrt-addon-python3 x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 98 k abrt-addon-vmcore x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 108 k abrt-addon-xorg x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 99 k abrt-cli x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 90 k abrt-dbus x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 123 k abrt-libs x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 114 k abrt-plugin-bodhi x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 98 k abrt-python x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 111 k abrt-python3 x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 112 k abrt-retrace-client x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 125 k abrt-tui x86_64 2.5.1-2.fc22 updates-testing 100 k Transaction Summary ========================================================================== Remove 2 Packages Downgrade 17 Packages It needed to remove some packages which were not available with the older version (for some reason). A hint after one of the first two stated commands would help a lot. dnf-1.0.2-2.fc22,hawkey-0.5.9-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-1.0.2-2.fc22,hawkey-0.5.9-2.fc22 Note that I see this hint even when I have used the --allowerasing option. This hint probably shouldn't be displayed under those circumstances. I see the hint when trying to downgrade. Great work, thanks. Package dnf-1.0.2-3.fc22, hawkey-0.5.9-3.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing dnf-1.0.2-3.fc22 hawkey-0.5.9-3.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-12577/dnf-1.0.2-3.fc22,hawkey-0.5.9-3.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). dnf-1.0.2-3.fc22, hawkey-0.5.9-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |