Bug 1760937

Proposing as a Final blocker - per openQA testing this seems to affect all default release-blocking package sets, even a minimal F30 install has dnf-yum installed it seems. In the past we've blocked on upgrade issues that can only be bypasses by using --allowerasing .

+1 blocker

+1 blocker

Discussed during the 2019-10-14 blocker review meeting: [0]

The decision to classify this bug as an "AcceptedBlocker" was made as it violates the Beta upgrade criteria, specifically the footnote:

"The upgraded system must include all packages that would be present on the system after a default installation from install media, plus any packages the user previously had (minus any obsolete content)"

[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2019-10-14/f31-blocker-review.2019-10-14-16.01.txt

There's really quite some discrepancies here:

dnf:
both f30 and f32: dnf-4.2.11-2.fc3
but
f31: dnf-4.2.9-4.fc31

libdnf:
both f30 and f32: libdnf-0.35.5-3.fc32 
but
f31: libdnf-0.35.3-5.fc31

yeah, I know. I've heard that the DNF team intends to leave it this way until F31 GA then catch up with a post-release update but I'm not 100% sure. The discrepancy isn't inherently a problem, I don't think, we can have the "older" yum obsolete the "newer" dnf-yum without problems, and I don't think it should cause any other problems either.

(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #6)
> yeah, I know. I've heard that the DNF team intends to leave it this way
> until F31 GA then catch up with a post-release update but I'm not 100% sure.
> The discrepancy isn't inherently a problem, I don't think, we can have the
> "older" yum obsolete the "newer" dnf-yum without problems, and I don't think
> it should cause any other problems either.

The problem is they don't have release branches and there's other problems so it then makes other possible fixes more problematic.

I bumped into this when trying to update to F31 with dnf. I mean, it's easy enough to remove the offending package and carry on.

But, my question here is, is there a technical reason this particular dnf version has to be used for F31? I mean, it shouldn't be that difficult to rebuild, right?

FEDORA-2019-c83c116154 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c83c116154

dnf-4.2.9-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-c83c116154

Bojan: there's no technical reason I don't think, no. But we're in the Final freeze for F31 release and we don't just bump to a new release during freeze unless we have a specific reason to do so (a critical bug the update would fix).

(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #11)
> Bojan: there's no technical reason I don't think, no. But we're in the Final
> freeze for F31 release and we don't just bump to a new release during freeze
> unless we have a specific reason to do so (a critical bug the update would
> fix).

Agreed, moving forward we need to work with the dnf team to work out why updates that were being pushed to F-30 and rawhide weren't being pushed to F-31, looking at koji buids they sort of stopped early September while F-30 and F-32 continued on.

dnf-4.2.9-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

I am just installing fc31 manually with dnf from fc30 and "dnf update dnf libdnf" still thinks that the fc30 ones are newer.
I had to manually bring in many dependent packages and remove some rpms to install the new dnf, rpm etc by brute force.

That's a different issue. And that's why the officially-recommended upgrade tools use distro-sync, not update. Why aren't you upgrading as recommended at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading/ ?

Thanks, old habits die hard....I build many of my own packages and dnf upgrade tells me what is changing
more clearly as I manually fix conflicts etc.

Newish to Fedora and ran into this bug: yum-4.2.9-5.fc31.noarch requires dnf = 4.2.9-5.fc31, but none of the providers can be installed - none of the suggested commands resolved it so spent a couple of hours attempting to fix it but ended up in dependency hell - at least this bug explains the dilemma. Might be useful to update known issues.

A futher comment: sudo dnf upgrade --refresh
- cannot install both dnf-4.2.9-5.fc31.noarch and dnf-4.2.11-2.fc30.noarch
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package dnf-yum-4.2.11-2.fc30.noarch
  - problem with installed package dnf-4.2.11-2.fc30.noarch
Seems as though dnf-4.2.9-5.fc31.noarch does not resolve it.

Use distro-sync, not upgrade. In fact, upgrade the correct way, with dnf system-upgrade:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading/