Bug 1368238

Please run dnf distro-sync with --debugsolver and upload it.

Created attachment 1192907 [details]
Results of dnf --debugsolver distro-sync

> system armv7hnl rpm @System
that's actually why.

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/hawkey/blob/d61bf52871fcc8e41c92921c8cd92abaa4dfaed5/src/util.c#L116-L154

Is there any way to set that to the correct value? Reading docs on dnf configuration didn't reveal much, so I thought it should get autodetected via /proc/cmdline (which doesn't seem to work here).

Sorry, I meant /proc/cpuinfo above. Looking at the code snippet you've linked above Igor, my machine should be detected as armv7hl as /proc/cpuinfo doesn't include any instances of "neon" (thus ARM_NEON should not be set in flags on line 53).

I believe RPM itself also detects the architecture correctly as armv7hl (as evidenced by rpm --showrc in the original post, if I interpret it correctly) - can the problem lie within dnf and/or libsolv specifically?

(In reply to Alexey Charkov from comment #6)
> Sorry, I meant /proc/cpuinfo above. Looking at the code snippet you've
> linked above Igor, my machine should be detected as armv7hl as /proc/cpuinfo
> doesn't include any instances of "neon" (thus ARM_NEON should not be set in
> flags on line 53).
> 
> I believe RPM itself also detects the architecture correctly as armv7hl (as
> evidenced by rpm --showrc in the original post, if I interpret it correctly)
> - can the problem lie within dnf and/or libsolv specifically?

can you paste `cat /proc/cpuinfo`?

Actually that function defines your arch and passes then to DNF/libsolv.

Igor, that's already pasted in the original bug description above, along with an abstract from rpm --showrc.

Please let me know if there's any other info that could help (happy to single-step through the code in gdb or whatever, if helpful - but would appreciate pointers on where to look).

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <hawkey/util.h>

static inline void
cleanup_free (void *p)
{
  void **pp = (void **)p;
  if (*pp)
    free (*pp);
}

int
main (void)
{
  __attribute__((__cleanup__(cleanup_free))) char *arch = NULL;
  if (hy_detect_arch (&arch))
    return EXIT_FAILURE;

  printf ("%s\n", arch);

  return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

# dnf --enablerepo=fedora-debuginfo --enablerepo=updates-debuginfo install hawkey-debuginfo glibc-debuginfo
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Werror -g `pkg-config --cflags --libs hawkey` arch.c
$ gdb ./a.out -ex "b hy_detect_arch" -ex "run"
and would be nice if you will examine what's going on there.

Bingo.

flags & (ARM_NEON | ARM_VFP3) is true whenever either of ARM_NEON or ARM_VFP3 bits is set (or both). Should instead be as follows:

(flags & ARM_NEON) && (flags & ARM_VFP3)

What would be the easiest way to test and confirm the fix on a non-devel system? Sorry I'm relatively new to Fedora - coming from Gentoo world where one can't really have a non-devel system :)

(In reply to Alexey Charkov from comment #10)
> Bingo.
> 
> flags & (ARM_NEON | ARM_VFP3) is true whenever either of ARM_NEON or
> ARM_VFP3 bits is set (or both). Should instead be as follows:
> 
> (flags & ARM_NEON) && (flags & ARM_VFP3)
> 
> What would be the easiest way to test and confirm the fix on a non-devel
> system? Sorry I'm relatively new to Fedora - coming from Gentoo world where
> one can't really have a non-devel system :)

From RPM's code:
        if (rstreq(un.machine, "armv7l")) {
            if (rpmat.hwcap & HWCAP_ARM_VFPv3) {
                if (rpmat.hwcap & HWCAP_ARM_NEON)
                    strcpy(un.machine, "armv7hnl");
                else
                    strcpy(un.machine, "armv7hl");
            }
        } 

There are 2 solutions:
* just fix that expression
* get arch from RPM

2nd one looks better solution.

hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8b21e1bd2d

hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-035cf56746

I confirm that with hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc24 from Koji I'm now correctly getting armv7hf variant for the packages in question. Thanks a lot for such a quick turnaround!

hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-035cf56746

hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-8b21e1bd2d

hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

hawkey-0.6.3-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.