Bug 2391893
| Summary: | Bogus "Software Updates Installed" notification on first boot | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adam Williamson <awilliam> |
| Component: | gnome-software | Assignee: | Milan Crha <mcrha> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 43 | CC: | gnome-sig, mcrha, rhughes |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | openqa AcceptedFreezeException | ||
| Fixed In Version: | gnome-software-49~rc-2.fc43 | Doc Type: | --- |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-09-04 08:10:27 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 2324224 | ||
|
Description
Adam Williamson
2025-08-29 18:36:46 UTC
openQA testing confirms that the gnome-software-49~beta-6 build fixed this. Unfortunately the update for it has been obsoleted by the 49~rc-1 update, https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c1d025901f . It might not be bad to pull in the RC build, though, especially if it improves https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/-/issues/2874 . I'll see how the RC build does in the next Rawhide compose. FEDORA-2025-c1d025901f (gnome-software-49~rc-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c1d025901f FEDORA-2025-c1d025901f has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-c1d025901f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c1d025901f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. +4 in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1890 , marking accepted FE. FEDORA-2025-167d00534c has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-167d00534c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-167d00534c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. The fix for this looks good in Rawhide testing - we don't seem to have seen this notification since "- dnf5-plugin: Skip historical updates search when no last date is set" in beta-6. FEDORA-2025-167d00534c (gnome-software-49~rc-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. somehow, in F43 testing of the GNOME 49-rc megaupdate, we're seeing a Software Updates Installed notification *during the live session*, e.g. https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/3698347#step/_boot_to_anaconda/8 where it showed up almost immediately after live image boot. This doesn't seem to have happened in testing of the F44 megaupdate. I'm not sure why there's a difference. Will look into it more in the morning. The bug #2392645 will switch back to the PackageKit for the f43. I guess you do not want to waste your time on this then. yes, if the revert goes through it should resolve this, but we may need/want to bundle it into the megaupdate so this doesn't interfere with testing/gating of that. Aha. I cannot add to the mega update, thus I filled https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f21f13867 (see bug #2392645). If Michael wants to "adopt" that gnome-software for the mega update then I've nothing against it. There will be a new release on this Friday, thus not much time. separate update is fine if it doesn't directly depend on anything in the megaupdate (in fact it gives us more flexibility). |