Bug 1302216
Summary: | dnf: missing information about dependency problems | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan ONDREJ <ondrejj> |
Component: | dnf | Assignee: | Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 23 | CC: | fedora, fedora, jsilhan, mdomonko, mluscon, packaging-team-maint, pnemade, rbu, vmukhame |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-02-01 13:21:37 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
Jan ONDREJ
2016-01-27 08:33:52 UTC
same issue, thanks to yum-deprecated I can the info Error: Package: python2-letsencrypt-0.2.0-4.fc23.noarch (updates) Requires: python2-configargparse >= 0.10.0 Installed: python2-configargparse-0.9.3-3.fc23.noarch (installed) python2-configargparse = 0.9.3-3.fc23 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Really missing. $ dnf update --best Error: nothing provides python2-configargparse >= 0.10.0 needed by python2-letsencrypt-0.2.0-4.fc23.noarch. nothing provides python2-configargparse >= 0.10.0 needed by python2-letsencrypt-0.2.0-4.fc23.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages) Seems better it's strange how you ended up seeing https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-23d9610648 before https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-291dc1c23f This is actually by design. We don't want to clutter the output with information that's not necessarily relevant. Knowing the technical reason for skipping in this case is only useful if one wants to manually resolve it -- which we don't assume by default, as the update command just silently skips over such broken deps anyway (as mentioned in the man page). When using --best, however, the missing dependency becomes the reason for the whole transaction to fail, in which case showing the exact reason is appropriate. *** Bug 1309408 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |