| Summary: | upgrade to Fedora25 cannot proceed due to file rpm/macros conflict | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Kamil Konieczny <kaxosan> | ||||||||
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko> | ||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||||
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||||||
| Version: | 25 | CC: | difool, ignatenko, jks, kardos.lubos, kaxosan, mluscon, novyjindrich, packaging-team-maint, pknirsch, pmatilai, pnemade, rpm-software-management, tomo.bbe, vmukhame | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Patch, Reopened | ||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | rpm-4.13.0-5.fc25 rpm-4.13.0-6.fc25 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2016-12-05 21:44:36 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: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Kamil Konieczny
2016-11-25 11:17:54 UTC
Main rpm package is NOT supposed to be available in arch flavors, that is a distro compose bug. OTOH I dont know why dnf would try to pull in the i686 version anyway. Not a bug in rpm though, its only doing its job by detecting the conflict. dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=25 --allowerasing --debugsolver and attach "debugdata" directory Created attachment 1224229 [details]
debugdata
* rpm-libs-4.13.0-1.fc24.i686@system has Req: rpm = 4.13.0-1.fc24 * rpm-libs-4.13.0-4.fc25.i686@updates has Req: rpm(x86-32) = 4.13.0-4.fc25 Oh. That also explains why rpm.i686 package got pulled into the x86_64 distro compose and everything. Ugh. Created attachment 1224248 [details]
Fix arch-dependent requires in subpackages (RHBZ #1398591)
Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko>
Looks ok to me, feel free fix for rawhide + f25 (including pushing an update). rpm-4.13.0-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-da15ae43d0 *** Bug 1398742 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** rpm-4.13.0-5.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-da15ae43d0 rpm-4.13.0-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. The problem remains for me with exactly the same command as OP. Error Summary ------------- Nov 30 20:54:12 CRITICAL Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/lib/rpm/macros conflicts between attempted installs of rpm-4.13.0-5.fc25.i686 and rpm-4.13.0-5.fc25.x86_64 Created attachment 1226508 [details]
DNF Debug data
I had the same problem, even with rpm-4.13.0-5.fc25 However, removing all installed rpm-*-i686 packages solves the problem. Hope this might help. rpm-4.13.0-6.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b7a95f6a89 rpm-4.13.0-6.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-b7a95f6a89 rpm-4.13.0-6.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Thank you, upgrade worked. Can you describe what you corrected ? There are some more 32-bit packets mixed into 64-bit intel platform, so your notes can help others to improve. Regards, Kamil |