| Summary: | cannot install vim when vim-minimal-2:7.4.1989-2.fc25.x86_64 is already installed | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andrew Hsu <xuzuan> |
| Component: | vim | Assignee: | Karsten Hopp <karsten> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 25 | CC: | gwync, karsten, mbabinsk, mfabian, mfs-it2, moshima.web, xuzuan, zdohnal |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-12-05 19:22:37 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: | |
|
Description
Andrew Hsu
2016-12-04 19:48:46 UTC
This happens in F24 too if someone tries to upgrade just vim alone (at least, if vim-2:7 is installed and we are going to install vim-2:8) If vim-minimal-2:7 is installed, performing a "dnf upgrade vim" 1) won't update vim-minimal, as there are no dependencies between vim-common/vim-enhanced on vim-minimal and 2) will spout a warning about the conflicting file "/usr/share/man/man1/vim.1.gz" Such file is owned by both vim-minimal and vim-common, so it's shipped twice. Wouldn't it make more sense to split man pages in a "vim-manpages" package or something if we don't wan't vim-minimal to have a dependency on vim-common and still deliver those man pages when shipping vim-minimal? Or: wouldn't it make sense to ship "/usr/share/man/man1/vim.1.gz" only with vim-enhanced, given that vim-minimal doesn't ship vim so there's no reason at all for it to deliver the file /usr/share/man/man1/vim.1.gz ? Hi, this bug is leftover of bug #1391564, would you mind trying to update your vim packages with rpms from this koji build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16704430 ? If you use it like this: $ dnf update <link_to_vim-X11> ... and so on, it should work. It worked in my case. *** Bug 1401468 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Hitting this on f25. Jon, would you mind trying that advice from comment #2, if it helps? Interestingly no. limb@bamboo ~]$ sudo dnf update https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4482/16704482/vim-X11-8.0.118-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4482/16704482/vim-common-8.0.118-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4482/16704482/vim-enhanced-8.0.118-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4482/16704482/vim-filesystem-8.0.118-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4482/16704482/vim-minimal-8.0.118-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm [sudo] password for limb: Last metadata expiration check: 1:42:25 ago on Mon Dec 5 08:21:47 2016. Error: package vim-enhanced-2:8.0.118-1.fc25.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0), but none of the providers can be installed Interesting. It seems like some problem with repo, because perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) should be installed with vim-enhanced as its requirement. You can try several things: A) try to run that update command with option --allowerasing B) check if you have installed perl-libs package $ rpm -qa perl-libs and if not, you can try install it C) or you can try to check you can install perl-libs by: $ dnf info perl-libs and if you did not get answer, you can try '$ dnf distro-sync' If any of these help you, I will try to add explicitly requirement of perl-libs, but I think it is not good thing to do. /me kicks self I maintain gitolite3, among other things, and I had gitolite3-3.6.6-1.fc26 installed for testing, which had totally confused my perl dependencies. --allowerasing fixed everything. :) I am glad it works for you :) . Closing it as a NOTABUG. *** Bug 1402431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |