Bug 2321111
| Summary: | "dnf update @core" results in odd changes including packages deletions when free and nonfree rpmfusion repositories are added | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | angel.segarra |
| Component: | dnf5 | Assignee: | rpm-software-management |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 41 | CC: | egoode, jkolarik, mblaha, mkjp, nsella, pkratoch, ppisar, roshan.shariff, rpm-software-management, teohhanhui |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | dnf5-5.2.13.1-1.fc41 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-05-27 11:17:17 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
angel.segarra
2024-10-22 19:15:53 UTC
Could you tell us what repository do you mean with "rpmfusion"? Preferably the URL. I believe that the root cause is this - https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/183 The thing is that `@core` group is defined in both fedora and rpmfusion-free repositories, but packages are taken only from one of them (see the github issue). (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #1) > Could you tell us what repository do you mean with "rpmfusion"? Preferably > the URL. Installing rpmfusion with as described in https://rpmfusion.org/Configuration sudo dnf install https://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-$(rpm -E %fedora).noarch.rpm https://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-$(rpm -E %fedora).noarch.rpm I wasn't able to reproduce the "odd changes". But I confirm that after enabling both rpmfusion repositories and installing appstream-data package, "dnf install @core" installs rpmfusion-nonfree-appstream-data without installing rpmfusion-free-appstream-data package despite rpmfusion-free repository has rpmfusion-free-appstream-data in core group: <packagelist> <packagereq type="mandatory">rpmfusion-free-release</packagereq> <packagereq type="conditional" requires="appstream-data">rpmfusion-free-appstream-data</packagereq> </packagelist> It indeed looks like the upstream issue #183 because the other rpmfusion-nonfree repository has a different core group definition: <packagelist> <packagereq type="mandatory">rpmfusion-nonfree-release</packagereq> <packagereq type="conditional" requires="appstream-data">rpmfusion-nonfree-appstream-data</packagereq> </packagelist> # dnf install @core Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package "rpmfusion-nonfree-release-42-0.1.noarch" is already installed. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing group/module packages: rpmfusion-nonfree-appstream-data noarch 41-1.fc41 rpmfusion-nonfree-rawh 215.1 KiB Installing groups: Core Transaction Summary: Installing: 1 package [...] # rpm -qa |grep appstream-data appstream-data-42-1.fc42.noarch rpmfusion-nonfree-appstream-data-41-1.fc41.noarch I checked that the missing rpmfusion-free-appstream-data package is not provided, nor obsoleted by any other package. (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #4) Do you get the same result with 'dnf update @core' instead of 'dnf install @core'? checking my dnf history prior to this I did the following: dnf remove *anaconda* dnf autoremove followed by adding the two rpmfusion repo rpms as described above and updating the @core group. Aside from that I'm on the plasma spin. I just tried this myself and with dnf install @core I get the same result as Petr but with 'dnf update @core' I get what I described in the original comment. (In reply to angel.segarra from comment #5) > Do you get the same result with 'dnf update @core' instead of 'dnf install > @core'? > No, I don't. I believe it depends of what groups and packages you have installed. I personally have installed no groups. This should have been fixed in DNF 5.2.13.0 by https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/pull/2156. I can't reproduce it by setting up the rpmfusion nonfree repositories and running `dnf5 update @core` (but I did not try to reproduce it prior to DNF 5.2.13.0). Angel, would you be able to test on your system with DNF 5.2.13.0 or newer to confirm that this has been fixed? |