Bug 2179413
| Summary: | Adding RepoID to the packages involved in dependency error RHEL 9-DNF. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Reporter: | Sagar Navale <snavale> |
| Component: | libdnf | Assignee: | Jaroslav Mracek <jmracek> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Tomáš Bajer <tbajer> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 9.1 | CC: | james.antill, jcastran, kwalker, mbanas, nsella, tbajer |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | pm-rhel:
mirror+
|
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | libdnf-0.69.0-5.el9 | Doc Type: | No Doc Update |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-11-07 08:54:48 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
Sagar Navale
2023-03-17 17:47:44 UTC
There is one negative part of the request - if the same package will be available from multiple repositories - dnf will report separate error report for each package. Currently DNF de-duplitate identical reports. I would like to ask you for a feedback for the format of output. What do you think about:
"package bloop-ext-2.0-1.noarch@updates requires bloop = 2.0-1, but none of the providers can be installed",
"cannot install both bloop-2.0-1.noarch@updates and bloop-1.0-1.noarch@@System",
"conflicting requests",
"package bloop-ext-1.0-1.noarch@updates is filtered out by exclude filtering"
or
"package bloop-ext-2.0-1.noarch from 'updates' requires bloop = 2.0-1, but none of the providers can be installed",
"cannot install both bloop-2.0-1.noarch from `updates` and bloop-1.0-1.noarch from `@System`",
"conflicting requests",
"package bloop-ext-1.0-1.noarch from `updates` is filtered out by exclude filtering"
Or do you have any other idea?
IMHO, the second suggested formatting is more clear and self descriptive (from 'updates'...). The '@' sign is already used for group ids which might be confusing. from `updates` looks fine to me as it's more readable, also we can also consider having format bloop-2.0-1.noarch(updates) like we had something with yum previously. Just another opinion, but +1 for the "from '<repoid>'" format. It looks like the most straightforward. Thank you very much for feedback. I checked implementation in libdnf and it looks like that using "from '<repoid>'" will require additional changes in modules data structure, because formatting errors is shared with modules. I have a patch that enhance error messages: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1596 VERIFIED with run-upstream-tests-on-rhel/see list below NEW: libdnf-0.69.0-5.el9 19 features passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped 214 scenarios passed, 0 failed, 12 skipped 1507 steps passed, 0 failed, 87 skipped, 0 undefined Took 1m4.987s OLD: libdnf-0.69.0-3.el9_2.x86_64 Failing scenarios: dnf/broken-dependencies-report.feature:13 Broken dependencies are reported when strict and best options are off dnf/broken-dependencies-report.feature:37 Broken dependencies are reported when strict option is off and best option is on dnf/broken-dependencies-report.feature:61 Broken dependencies are reported when skip-broken and best options are on dnf/comps-group.feature:95 Install and remove group with excluded package dependency dnf/history-undo-dependant.feature:4 Undo module install with dependent userinstalled package dnf/install-dependencies.feature:8 Best candidates have conflicting dependencies dnf/install-exclude.feature:14 Install an RPM that requires excluded RPM dnf/microdnf/upgrade.feature:102 Upgrade all RPMs from multiple repositories with best=True dnf/module/enable-contexts.feature:48 An error is printed with no stream and context is possible to enable dnf/module/enable-dependencies.feature:241 Module cannot be disabled if there are other enabled streams requiring it dnf/module/enable-dependencies.feature:302 Cannot enable a stream depending on a disabled module dnf/module/enable-errors.feature:163 Enabling a stream depending on other than enabled stream should fail dnf/module/enable-errors.feature:198 Enabling a stream depending on a disabled stream should fail dnf/module/enable-errors.feature:236 Enabling two modules both requiring different streams of another module dnf/module/enable-errors.feature:248 Enabling module stream and another module requiring another stream dnf/module/install-module-static-context.feature:95 Install and upgrade from context with broken dependencies => static_context=true dnf/module/install.feature:68 Installing a module and its dependencies, non-modular dependency is not available dnf/obsoletes.feature:259 Both packages are installed when group contains both obsoleter and obsoleted packages and obsoletes are switched off dnf/plugins-core/builddep-modularity.feature:47 Builddep reports error where required package is available only in non-enabled non-default stream dnf/plugins-core/download-binary.feature:46 Error when failed to resolve dependencies dnf/repoquery/main.feature:585 repoquery --unsatisfied dnf/security-upgrade.feature:25 --security upgrade with advisories with pkgs of different arches (noarch variant) dnf/stick-to-vendor.feature:47 Downgrade is unable to resolve transaction dnf/transaction-sr/replay-errors.feature:250 Replay a transaction with a dependency conflict dnf/transaction-sr/replay-errors.feature:295 Replay a transaction with a broken dependency dnf/upgrade.feature:58 Upgrade all RPMs from multiple repositories with best=False dnf/upgrade.feature:88 Upgrade all RPMs from multiple repositories with best=True 0 features passed, 19 failed, 0 skipped 187 scenarios passed, 27 failed, 12 skipped 1455 steps passed, 27 failed, 112 skipped, 0 undefined Took 1m1.382s Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (libdnf bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2023:6647 |