Bug 1270451
| Summary: | Don't show packages from lower priority repos which are masked/blocked by higher prority repo packages | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Davide Repetto <red> |
| Component: | dnf | Assignee: | rpm-software-management |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 24 | CC: | jdean55, jmracek, maxantispam, mluscon, mmraka, packaging-team-maint, RadekHolyPublic, vmukhame |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | dnf-2.5.0-2.fc26 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-06-09 19:06:28 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
Davide Repetto
2015-10-10 07:35:57 UTC
We think that the output will be confusing if we change current output. Well, actually it is really confusing now, because it tells you an outright lie. It states that there are "broken dependencies" when actually there are none. And this *is* the definition of "confusing". On the other hand I fail to see how replacing this *false* statement with a factually correct one could generate any confusion. Please reconsider fixing this. Because a false warning is a nuisance at best and in this case it is even more. A real issue that can make people run around in circles for hours trying to fix an inexistent problem. NOTE: I've actually had multiple reports from custromers asking "how to FIX those pesky broken dependecies that just won't go away". Packages from lower priority repos which are masked/blocked by higher prority repo packages should not be listed at all. (In reply to Michael Mráka from comment #3) > Packages from lower priority repos which are masked/blocked by higher > prority repo packages should not be listed at all. This would be even better, because it may solve the problem with gnome-software, which sees priority-excluded packages show over and over again and failing to upgrade due to missing dependencies every single time. We can fix it. As I understood it, the warning message was introduced for another scenario described in bug #1210445 The only problem is that the same warning now is used for packages skipped for priority-reasons as well, which indeed is misleading - as the dependencies are not broken in this case. If it's not possible to implement a separate warning-message in case of priority-reasons - what about renaming the warning-message to a) something more general or b) meeting both scenarios: a) "Skipping packages for dependency reasons:" b) "Skipping packages with higher priority or broken dependencies:" What do you think? This is a misleading situation currently. An improved error message would be the best alternative. This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component. Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. Seems it's already been fixed: # dnf install vim-enhanced Last metadata expiration check: 0:33:43 ago on Wed Jul 20 10:36:34 2016. Dependencies resolved. ========================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ========================================================================================================== Installing: gpm-libs x86_64 1.20.7-9.fc24 fedora 36 k perl-Carp noarch 1.38-2.fc24 fedora 28 k perl-Exporter noarch 5.72-349.fc24 fedora 33 k perl-libs x86_64 4:5.22.2-361.fc24 updates 1.4 M vim-common x86_64 2:7.4.1868-1.fc24 updates 6.3 M vim-enhanced x86_64 2:7.4.1868-1.fc24 updates 1.2 M vim-filesystem x86_64 2:7.4.1868-1.fc24 updates 29 k Transaction Summary ========================================================================================================== Install 7 Packages Total download size: 9.0 M Installed size: 35 M Is this ok [y/N]: n # dnf install vim-enhanced --setopt fedora.priority=10 Last metadata expiration check: 0:39:41 ago on Wed Jul 20 10:36:34 2016. Dependencies resolved. ========================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ========================================================================================================== Installing: gpm-libs x86_64 1.20.7-9.fc24 fedora 36 k perl-Carp noarch 1.38-2.fc24 fedora 28 k perl-Exporter noarch 5.72-349.fc24 fedora 33 k perl-libs x86_64 4:5.22.2-359.fc24 fedora 1.4 M vim-common x86_64 2:7.4.1718-1.fc24 fedora 6.6 M vim-enhanced x86_64 2:7.4.1718-1.fc24 fedora 1.2 M vim-filesystem x86_64 2:7.4.1718-1.fc24 fedora 25 k Transaction Summary ========================================================================================================== Install 7 Packages Total size: 9.3 M Total download size: 9.2 M Installed size: 31 M Is this ok [y/N]: n # rpm -q dnf dnf-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch True, my bad. I didn't check with the latest update of dnf. Thanks! Actually it's still there when there's nothing else to install: [root@dave ~]# LANG=C dnf upgrade Last metadata expiration check: 2:44:54 ago on Wed Jul 27 15:47:10 2016. Dependencies resolved. ===================================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ===================================================================================================================================== Skipping packages with broken dependencies: audacity-freeworld x86_64 2.1.2-2.fc24.R russianfedora-free-updates 5.2 M faac x86_64 1.28-7.fc24.R russianfedora-free 83 k flash-plugin x86_64 7:11.2.202.632-1.fc24.R russianfedora-nonfree-updates 5.5 M fontconfig i686 2.11.94-6.fc24.R russianfedora-fixes 247 k fontconfig x86_64 2.11.94-6.fc24.R russianfedora-fixes 241 k freetype i686 2.6.3-2.fc24.R russianfedora-fixes 371 k freetype x86_64 2.6.3-2.fc24.R russianfedora-fixes 365 k gstreamer-plugins-bad x86_64 0.10.23-7.fc24.R russianfedora-free 170 k mpv x86_64 1:0.18.1-1.fc24.R russianfedora-free-updates 1.0 M rar x86_64 1:5.3.0-1.fc24.R russianfedora-nonfree 263 k taglib i686 1.11-1.fc24.R russianfedora-fixes-updates 342 k taglib x86_64 1.11-1.fc24.R russianfedora-fixes-updates 310 k unrar x86_64 1:5.3.0-1.fc24.R russianfedora-nonfree 135 k Transaction Summary ===================================================================================================================================== Skip 13 Packages Nothing to do. Complete! [root@dave ~]# rpm -q dnf dnf-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch [root@dave ~]# note: the russianfedora repos have 'priority = 120' I refactored reporting of skipped packages and errors report of solver in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/782. Hope that it helps. dnf-plugins-extras-2.0.1-1.fc26 dnf-plugins-core-2.1.0-1.fc26 libdnf-0.9.0-1.fc26 dnf-2.5.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-92e5a01da8 dnf-2.5.0-1.fc26, dnf-plugins-core-2.1.0-1.fc26, dnf-plugins-extras-2.0.1-1.fc26, libdnf-0.9.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-92e5a01da8 dnf-2.5.0-1.fc26 dnf-plugins-core-2.1.0-1.fc26 dnf-plugins-extras-2.0.1-1.fc26 dnfdaemon-0.3.17-3.fc26 libdnf-0.9.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-92e5a01da8 dnf-2.5.0-2.fc26 dnf-plugins-core-2.1.0-1.fc26 dnf-plugins-extras-2.0.1-1.fc26 dnfdaemon-0.3.18-1.fc26 libdnf-0.9.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-92e5a01da8 dnf-2.5.0-2.fc26, dnf-plugins-core-2.1.0-1.fc26, dnf-plugins-extras-2.0.1-1.fc26, dnfdaemon-0.3.18-2.fc26, libdnf-0.9.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-92e5a01da8 dnf-2.5.0-2.fc26, dnf-plugins-core-2.1.0-1.fc26, dnf-plugins-extras-2.0.1-1.fc26, dnfdaemon-0.3.18-2.fc26, libdnf-0.9.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |