Bug 1281596

Summary:	dnf builddep should be more verbose
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Kevin Fenzi <kevin>
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:	rawhide	CC:	jsilhan, jsmith.fedora, mluscon, ngompa13, packaging-team-maint, pbrobinson, pnemade, vmukhame, vondruch
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:	2015-11-13 13:50:38 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 Kevin Fenzi 2015-11-12 21:32:47 UTC

We have switched the Fedora builders over to Fedora 23 and dnf and in this I noticed that 'dnf builddep' isn't as verbose as maintainers might like it to be. 

For example: 

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11776173

failed with: 

DEBUG util.py:393:  Error: package octave-devel-6:4.0.0-6.fc24.x86_64 requires octave = 6:4.0.0-6.fc24, but none of the providers can be installed

This was true, but only because it can't install octave, which is because it can't install java-headless which is because it can't install javapackages-tools which is because it can't install python3-javapackages.

Ie, the real dep issue was with python3-javapackages. 

Would it be possible to report the resolver chain that led to not being able to install that 'top level' package? That would be of great help to maintainers when trying to see what package(s) need attention.

Comment 1 Vít Ondruch 2015-11-13 13:50:38 UTC


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