Bug 1245137

Summary:	[repoquery] whatrequires differs from YUM's "repoquery --whatrequires"
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Parag Nemade <pnemade>
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:	23	CC:	jsilhan, mluscon, packaging-team-maint, pnemade, rholy, tim.lauridsen, vmukhame
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:	2015-07-21 09:56:37 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 Parag Nemade 2015-07-21 09:46:09 UTC

Description of problem:
I saw current bug triaging showing libhif keyword for many bugs. Trying to figure out from where in dnf design workflow libhif is coming into picture. So used following command
$dnf repoquery --whatrequires libhif

but there is no output. I tried to crosscheck with yum repoquery
$ repoquery --whatrequires libhif

Yum-utils package has been deprecated, use dnf instead.
See 'man yum2dnf' for more information.


PackageKit-0:1.0.6-4.fc22.x86_64
PackageKit-0:1.0.6-6.fc22.x86_64
libhif-devel-0:0.2.0-3.fc22.i686
libhif-devel-0:0.2.0-3.fc22.x86_64
libhif-devel-0:0.2.0-5.fc22.i686
libhif-devel-0:0.2.0-5.fc22.x86_64

Why is there difference and not same output?


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dnf-1.0.1

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.dnf repoquery --whatrequires libhif
2.repoquery --whatrequires libhif
3.

Actual results:
both command output are not same

Expected results:
both command output should be same

Additional info:

Comment 1 Radek Holy 2015-07-21 09:56:37 UTC

See bug 1243565.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1243565 ***

Comment 2 Parag Nemade 2015-07-21 11:39:38 UTC

Ah! marking bug duplicate is okay but I too have some doubt here not sure this comment will be good place for that. I asked yesterday also on IRC but did not get reply. I raised concern in other bug 1193823 also but no reply. I created this bug with reference to same question but this bug is closed now.

Question-> What is the relation of libhif in dnf workflow?

Comment 3 Radek Holy 2015-07-21 12:16:00 UTC

FTR, I recommended Parag to follow the discussion at http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/Week-of-Mon-20150629/000083.html