Bug 1195106

Summary:	no information given about broken dependencies
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Ben Boeckel <fedora>
Component:	dnf	Assignee:	Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	22	CC:	beland, bryant, jsilhan, mluscon, packaging-team-maint, pnemade, rholy, tim.lauridsen
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:	2015-07-10 15:25:13 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 Ben Boeckel 2015-02-23 04:42:51 UTC

Description of problem:
When there is a broken dependency which breaks the upgrade of a package, zero indication is given. Example:

# dnf info libass.x86_64
Using metadata from Sun Feb 22 22:02:14 2015
Installed Packages
Name        : libass
Arch        : x86_64
Epoch       : 0
Version     : 0.10.1
Release     : 4.fc20
Size        : 123 k
Repo        : @System
Summary     : Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering
URL         : http://code.google.com/p/libass/
License     : ISC
Description : Libass is a portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering.

Available Packages
Name        : libass
Arch        : x86_64
Epoch       : 0
Version     : 0.12.0
Release     : 1.fc22
Size        : 83 k
Repo        : rawhide
Summary     : Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering
URL         : https://github.com/libass
License     : ISC
Description : Libass is a portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering.

I have 0.10.1 installed and 0.12.0 is available. However:

# dnf upgrade libass
Using metadata from Sun Feb 22 22:02:14 2015
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.

Using dnf-0.6.4-1.fc22.noarch and no amount of "-v" gets me useful information for tracking down what needs to be fixed.

Comment 1 bryant 2015-02-23 17:25:40 UTC

Can you try yum and see if it gives any helpful debugging info? If so, maybe that would be a nice template for adding more debugging info to dnf?

Comment 2 Ben Boeckel 2015-02-24 02:23:52 UTC

Related to Bug #1183120 as well.

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libass.x86_64 0:0.10.1-4.fc20 will be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libass = 0.10.1-4.fc20 for package: libass-devel-0.10.1-4.fc20.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libass.so.4()(64bit) for package: ffmpeg-libs-2.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libass.so.4()(64bit) for package: libass-devel-0.10.1-4.fc20.x86_64
---> Package libass.x86_64 0:0.12.0-1.fc22 will be an update
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libass.x86_64 0:0.10.1-4.fc20 will be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libass.so.4()(64bit) for package: ffmpeg-libs-2.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64
---> Package libass-devel.x86_64 0:0.10.1-4.fc20 will be updated
---> Package libass-devel.x86_64 0:0.12.0-1.fc22 will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: ffmpeg-libs-2.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64 (@rpmfusion-free-rawhide/21)
           Requires: libass.so.4()(64bit)
           Removing: libass-0.10.1-4.fc20.x86_64 (@rawhide/20)
               libass.so.4()(64bit)
           Updated By: libass-0.12.0-1.fc22.x86_64 (rawhide)
              ~libass.so.5()(64bit)
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

Comment 3 Ben Boeckel 2015-02-24 02:53:15 UTC

So going down this rabbithole, it seems that No Frozen Rawhide is too fast for RPMFusion. By the time they get Fn spun up, Rawhide is Fn+1 and the --releasever is wrong. By going from --releasever=20 up to --releasever=21, things seem to be better.

Comment 4 Honza Silhan 2015-03-09 13:58:58 UTC

Thanks for the report. This will be fixed with error/solution messages improvement.

Comment 5 Christopher Beland 2015-06-10 16:52:59 UTC

Setting version to 22 since I think the vintage of Rawhide that this bug was reported against is now Fedora 22.  Feel free to change if this is incorrect or confusing.

Comment 6 Honza Silhan 2015-07-10 15:25:13 UTC

This is basically dup of bug 1148627. Both reports wants debugging information about processing packages in some order and show the unsatisfied dependency.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1148627 ***