Bug 2392314

Summary: mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Milan Crha <mcrha>
Component: mesa-compatAssignee: Neal Gompa <ngompa13>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: airlied, ajanulgu, ajax, asrivats, caballero.arcos, igor.raits, jexposit, lyude, ngompa13, nixuser, rstrode, tstellar
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc43 Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-09-18 00:18:28 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 Milan Crha 2025-09-01 07:55:31 UTC
Trying to update my rawhide machine I get this error from the dnf:

file /usr/lib64/libxatracker.so.2.5.0 from install of mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64

The mesa-compat-libxatracker is not installed in the system, it's to-be installed.

If the mesa-compat-libxatracker is supposed to replace mesa-libxatracker, should it obsolete it in the .spec file?

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-01 19:48:49 UTC
HI milan,
In rawhide we now have an updated mesa - version 25.2.1. libxatracker is obsolete on mesa from this version onwards.... any version before that, the mesa will provide the libxatracker package. Can u try with the latest mesa in rawhide to check if the issue is still seen?

Thanks!

Comment 2 Milan Crha 2025-09-02 08:26:22 UTC
Looking into the details, maybe the problem is elsewhere. To reproduce this, I:
a) install mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm
b) install xorg-x11-drv-vmware-13.4.0-9.fc43.x86_64.rpm
c) run `dnf update`

The result is:

# dnf update
Updating and loading repositories:
Repositories loaded.
Package                                              Arch         Version                                               Repository                        Size
Upgrading:
 xorg-x11-drv-vmware                                 x86_64       13.4.0-11.fc44                                        rawhide                      172.9 KiB
   replacing xorg-x11-drv-vmware                     x86_64       13.4.0-9.fc43                                         @commandline                 172.9 KiB
Installing dependencies:
 mesa-compat-libxatracker                            x86_64       25.0.7-1.fc44                                         rawhide                        8.2 MiB

Transaction Summary:
 Installing:         1 package
 Upgrading:          1 package
 Replacing:          1 package

Total size of inbound packages is 2 MiB. Need to download 2 MiB.
After this operation, 8 MiB extra will be used (install 8 MiB, remove 173 KiB).
Is this ok [y/N]: y
[1/2] xorg-x11-drv-vmware-0:13.4.0-11.fc44.x86_64                                100% | 956.8 KiB/s |  83.2 KiB |  00m00s
[2/2] mesa-compat-libxatracker-0:25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64                            100% |  10.3 MiB/s |   1.5 MiB |  00m00s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2/2] Total                                                                      100% |   1.5 MiB/s |   1.5 MiB |  00m01s
Running transaction
Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
  - file /usr/lib64/libxatracker.so.2.5.0 from install of mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64


When I uninstall xorg-x11-drv-vmware, there is nothing to update and dnf is happy.

From that, if I understand it correctly, the xorg-x11-drv-vmware brings in mesa-compat-libxatracker, but that cannot be installed together with the old `mesa-libxatracker` package. I do not know how it is usually done, maybe the new mesa should obsolete the mesa-libxatracker package in the .spec file, but which subpackage of the mesa it should be I do not know.

These are the mesa packages my rawhide machine has currently installed:

$ rpm -qa | grep mesa | sort

mesa-dri-drivers-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-filesystem-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-devel-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libgbm-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libgbm-devel-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libGL-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libGL-devel-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libGLU-9.0.3-7.fc43.x86_64
mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64
mesa-va-drivers-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-vulkan-drivers-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64

Thus most of them (only not all) are from the 25.2.1 release.

Comment 3 José Expósito 2025-09-02 08:38:31 UTC
> I do not know how it is usually done, maybe the new mesa should obsolete the
> mesa-libxatracker package in the .spec file, but which subpackage of the mesa
> it should be I do not know.

I think that's the case. Anusha, could this be due to missing "Obsoletes:" and "Provides:" in the spec file?

Comment 4 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-02 21:18:17 UTC
Thanks for the logs above. Saw how it is manages for the other deprecated packages, makes sense. Adding the missing fragments.

Comment 5 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-05 16:34:11 UTC
@mcrha  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/pull-request/85 this is now merged. You Should not be seeing the issue anymore.

Comment 6 Milan Crha 2025-09-08 08:49:58 UTC
Which version is that built with, please? When dnf finds mesa 25.2.2-1.fc44, it still fails (it found many more mesa* packages to update, I mention only one for readability):

   # dnf update
   . 
   .
   .
    mesa-dri-drivers                      x86_64 25.2.2-1.fc44           rawhide  47.9 MiB
      replacing mesa-dri-drivers          x86_64 25.2.1-1.fc44           rawhide  47.9 MiB
   .
   .
   .
    xorg-x11-drv-vmware                   x86_64 13.4.0-11.fc44          rawhide 172.9 KiB
      replacing xorg-x11-drv-vmware       x86_64 13.4.0-9.fc43           @comman 172.9 KiB

   Transaction Summary:
    Installing:         8 packages
    Upgrading:         43 packages
    Replacing:         43 packages

   .
   .
   .

   Running transaction
   Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
     - file /usr/lib64/libxatracker.so.2.5.0 from install of mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64
       conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64

Comment 7 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-08 12:38:44 UTC
@mcrha 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/pull-request/83#comment-281397

You are right, between the needed changes being accepted and propagating the build, spirv-translator changed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/pull-request/83#comment-281397

Comment 8 Milan Crha 2025-09-08 15:21:19 UTC
Okay, no problem, I can retest once the probable fix is in the mirrors. If you can give me a version of the mesa package I should test with, then it'll be best.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2025-09-14 11:39:17 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 (mesa-25.2.2-5.fc43, mesa-compat-25.0.7-1.fc43, and 3 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-72be889993

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2025-09-15 01:33:16 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 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-2025-72be889993`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-72be889993

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2025-09-16 14:56:08 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 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-2025-72be889993`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-72be889993

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2025-09-18 00:18:28 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 (mesa-25.2.2-6.fc43, mesa-compat-25.0.7-2.fc43, and 3 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2025-09-18 10:52:39 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084 (mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084

Comment 14 José Expósito 2025-09-18 10:55:02 UTC
I just pushed a new build including a change that should fix the problem:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2025-09-19 02:52:27 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084 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-d0d0983084`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 16 Milan Crha 2025-09-19 07:00:13 UTC
I'm waiting for the mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc44 to show up in the mirrors, to verify it works. It pick currently the 25.0.7-2 for me, which still reproduces the problem, thus it'll be easy to verify. I guess it'll be ready after the weekend, then I'll leave a comment here.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2025-09-22 00:17:21 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084 (mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Milan Crha 2025-09-22 07:32:38 UTC
Confirming, the update of my rawhide machine went fine with this new version.

Comment 19 Red Hat Bugzilla 2026-01-21 04:25:05 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days