|Summary:||zif fails when openshift repo is enabled.|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Jef Spaleta <jspaleta>|
|Component:||zif||Assignee:||Richard Hughes <hughsient>|
|Status:||CLOSED NEXTRELEASE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||hughsient, kevin, smooge|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2011-09-27 17:37:46 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Jef Spaleta 2011-09-19 19:53:21 UTC
Created attachment 523896 [details] stdout of zif -v install paprefs Description of problem: zif -v install papref The transaction failed: Failed to filter newest: cannot compare rhc;0.75.9-1.el6_1;noarch;openshift-express with gconfmm26;2.28.2-2.fc15;x86_64;fedora Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): zif-0.2.4-0.78.20110918git.fc15.x86_64 this was pulled from the koji scratch build Kevin Kofler provided. How reproducible: Always as long as openshift-express repo is enabled. Steps to Reproduce: 1. install the openshift-express repo definition and make sure its enabled. 2. zif install paprefs 3. failure Additional info: See attached text output from zif -v install paprefs transaction
Comment 1 Kevin Kofler 2011-09-19 20:15:11 UTC
So my first observation is that, if the debugging output is correct, the repository is broken, it's providing libgconfmm-2.6.so.1()(64bit) in a package which has no business providing it (a noarch package providing a shared library, and which is an .el6 package in a F15 repository, huh?). There are also 2 google-* packages also abusively providing that shared library. Now why zif is failing on this is another question, which I'll have to leave to Richard Hughes to answer. (I'm not a developer of zif.)
Comment 2 Richard Hughes 2011-09-19 20:47:39 UTC
Yes, the repo looks pretty messed up. I'll have a proper look tomorrow and try to reproduce and see what we should do.
Comment 3 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-19 22:50:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #1) Kevin, I don't think the debugging information from zif is correct. On the same system repoquery -q --repoid=openshift-express --whatprovides "libgconfmm-2.6.so.1()(64bit)" returns nothing. Whereas repoquery -q --repoid=fedora --whatprovides "libgconfmm-2.6.so.1()(64bit)" returns: gconfmm26-0:2.28.2-2.fc15.x86_64 the openshift-express repo provides exactly one package rhc. There's no indication whatsoever from the yum based tooling that I understand how to use that the libgconfmm provides you point is referenced in the openshift-express repository metadata. And I've looked at the primary.xml in /var/cache/zif/x86_64/15/openshift-express/ and there's no reference to any unexpected provides which do not match the rhc package. -jef
Comment 4 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-19 23:02:56 UTC
Created attachment 523925 [details] Problem again this time with upstream adobe repo enabled zif -v install paprefs this time with the adobe-linux-i386 repo enabled. Again a failure doing a dep resolution. Fails with: The transaction failed: Failed to filter newest: cannot compare gconfmm26;2.28.2-2.fc15;x86_64;fedora with adobe-release-i386;1.0-1;noarch;adobe-linux-i386 repoquery -q --provides -a --repoid adobe-linux-i386 |grep gconfmm returns nothing. here is the repo definition as installed by adobe-release-i386-1.0-1.noarch [adobe-linux-i386] name=Adobe Systems Incorporated baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/i386/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-adobe-linux Lightning striking twice?
Comment 5 Stephen John Smoogen 2011-09-23 01:14:37 UTC
Ok testing this with F16 beta2. I did the following: 1) Installed a minimal system 2) yum groupinstall kde --exclude=digikam --exclude=kipi* 3) make 4 repo files in /etc/yum.repos.d [openshift-express] name=Openshift-express baseurl=https://openshift.redhat.com/app/repo/rpms/15/$basearch/ failovermethod=priority skip_if_unavailable=1 gpgkey=https://openshift.redhat.com/app/repo/RPM-GPG-KEY-redhat-beta ggpkey=https://openshift.redhat.com/app/repo/RPM-GPG-KEY-redhat-release enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 [adobe-linux-i386] name=Adobe Systems Incorporated baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/i386/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-adobe-linux [google-chrome] name=google-chrome baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/i386 enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 [google-talkplugin] name=google-talkplugin baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/talkplugin/rpm/stable/i386 enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 [root@mae ~]# zif repo-list [==============================] (100%) adobe-linux-i386 enabled Adobe Systems Incorporated fedora enabled Fedora 16 - i386 fedora-debuginfo disabled Fedora 16 - i386 - Debug fedora-source disabled Fedora 16 - Source google-chrome enabled google-chrome google-talkplugin enabled google-talkplugin openshift-express enabled Openshift-express updates disabled Fedora 16 - i386 - Updates updates-debuginfo disabled Fedora 16 - i386 - Updates - Debug updates-source disabled Fedora 16 - Updates Source updates-testing enabled Fedora 16 - i386 - Test Updates updates-testing-debuginfo disabled Fedora 16 - i386 - Test Updates Debug updates-testing-source disabled Fedora 16 - Test Updates Source 'zif list | grep openshift' does not show it. If I do yum list | grep openshift I see rhc.noarch In fact I don't see anything from the other repos in a zif list. Next I do a zif install google-talkplugin. A zif list shows it as installed, but afterwords any zif install command gives me errors: (zif:8003): Zif-CRITICAL **: zif_object_array_add: assertion `object != NULL' failed The transaction failed: Failed to filter newest: cannot compare google-talkplugin;126.96.36.199-1;i386;google-talkplugin with rubygem-parseconfig;0.5.2-4.fc15;noarch;fedora Hopefully this helps debug what may be the errors are.
Comment 6 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-23 02:41:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #5) This unlistable openshift repository content confirmed but in a different way zif list |grep rhc does not show rhc package as being available but zif install rhc installs the package as expected. That is highly unexpected behavior. similarily zif list |grep adobe returns nothing but zif update includes the following: flash-plugin-10.3.183.10-release.i386 (adobe-linux-i386) but zif update flash-plugin tells me there is no update ready. This is seriously borked. Thanks Stephen for taking the time to confirm some of what I am seeing. This has been driving me crazy over the last couple of days. The internal inconsistency in the repodata handling between the different functions in zif make it impossible to do any comprehensive testing against real-world repos. -jef
Comment 7 Richard Hughes 2011-09-23 09:55:30 UTC
(In reply to comment #5) > Ok testing this with F16 beta2. I did the following: Cool, thanks for the detailed instructions, I appreciate it. > 'zif list | grep openshift' does not show it. If I do yum list | grep openshift > I see rhc.noarch In fact I don't see anything from the other repos in a zif > list. This was a bug in ZifRepoMdPrimaryXml. Most of my repos are new-style sqlite-based repos and so I didn't spot this bug until now. Basically: commit 97b58553756fda953d280c363f168958aac5f65d Author: Richard Hughes <email@example.com> Date: Fri Sep 23 10:33:16 2011 +0100 Ensure the ZifMdPrimaryXml is loaded before we get the package list Fixes the other half of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739701 > (In reply to comment #5) > This unlistable openshift repository content confirmed but in a different way > zif list |grep rhc does not show rhc package as being available This was caused by a regression when I turned on the native resolve flag in the command line client: commit fd164226e54a92c9115b8b6f6317e5df3e825eb8 Author: Richard Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed Sep 14 14:33:05 2011 +0100 Prefer the native arch when resolving if the ZIF_STORE_RESOLVE_FLAG_PREFER_NATIVE flag is set This caused all resolves to a noarch package to fail. You can reproduce the failure using only the fedora repos using: "zif resolve perl-Log-Message-Simple" What we basically want to encode in the matching logic is that noarch matches any arch. This is what I've done this morning with: commit 31ea01238dd83c734f57456fe4e0cda6b71fdf4f Author: Richard Hughes <email@example.com> Date: Fri Sep 23 09:41:39 2011 +0100 Allow Resolve(zif.i386) to match zif.noarch Resolves half of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739701 Can you guys please check that verifies the problem by checking git master, or my snapshot repo please. Thanks!
Comment 8 Richard Hughes 2011-09-23 18:00:04 UTC
This should fix things once and for all: commit 4c5ee94c5c15224e5b5405095a94703cb6aaee7f Author: Richard Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri Sep 23 18:57:04 2011 +0100 Use the results from all repos when calculating the 'best' provide Before we were searching each repo individually, and finishing when a repo provided something that looked good enough. This doesn't work when repos contain packages with broken provides, and we have to consider all the packages at once. Resolves https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739701 Okay, using git master I now get: $ zif install rhc Transaction summary: Installing: 1. rhc-0.75.9-1.el6_1.noarch (openshift-express) Installing for dependencies: 1. ruby-188.8.131.522-1.fc16.x86_64 (fedora) 2. ruby-irb-184.108.40.2062-1.fc16.noarch (fedora) 3. ruby-rdoc-220.127.116.112-1.fc16.noarch (fedora) 4. rubygem-json-1.4.6-3.fc15.x86_64 (fedora) 5. rubygem-parseconfig-0.5.2-4.fc15.noarch (fedora) 6. rubygems-1.8.10-1.fc16.noarch (updates-testing) Total download size: 1.8 MB Run transaction? [y/N] Can you please confirm this works for you guys please. Thanks.
Comment 9 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-23 18:42:41 UTC
Richard, When you say "broken provides" what are you referring to in the openshift-express case? I'm still not sure I understand what is "broken" with regard to the rhc package itself or the openshift-express repodata. Or is there some subtle brokenness in the fedora repository provided rubygem packageset that is getting pulled in as a dependency? -jef
Comment 10 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-23 19:37:18 UTC
Richard, I pulled git and did a local build of zif just now on an F15 system. I see different behavior but its still not entirely what I expected. It looks like zif is failing to report the full list of packages to be downloaded at the Y/N review step. Here's how I reproduced the issue. Prep the system yum remove rhc "rubygems*" confirm that no rubygems* packages are installed on system with rpm -q rpm -q rubygems no package installed ./zif install rhc Transaction summary: Installing: 1. rhc-0.75.9-1.el6_1.noarch (openshift-express) Installing for dependencies: 1. rubygem-json-1.4.6-3.fc15.x86_64 (fedora) Total download size: 0.7 Mb Note that the required rubygems package is not listed... but it is installed as part of the zif transaction. rpm -q rubygems package installed but was not listed in the zif transaction review! On install Zif should be selecting rubygems packages as it is the only thing which provides one of the rubygem-json requirements. So zif seems to be doing the depsolving its just not providing the correct "Installing for dependencies" information nor correct "download size" at the Y/N review point. -jef
Comment 11 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-23 19:47:05 UTC
git build of zif is still is showing oddness on update. ./zif update flash-plugin No packages found (after filter) ./zif update Transaction summary: Updating the system: 1. device-mapper-1.02.63-4.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 2. device-mapper-event-1.02.63-4.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 3. device-mapper-event-libs-1.02.63-4.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 4. device-mapper-libs-1.02.63-4.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 5. espeak-1.45.05-3.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 6. flash-plugin-10.3.183.10-release.i386 (adobe-linux-i386) 7. gnupg2-2.0.18-1.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 8. google-musicmanager-beta-18.104.22.16804-0.x86_64 (google-musicmanager) 9. lvm2-2.02.84-4.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 10. lvm2-libs-2.02.84-4.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) 11. m4-1.4.16-2.fc15.x86_64 (updates-testing) Richard, do I need to file a separate bug for that? -jef
Comment 12 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-23 20:08:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #10) Okay so the transaction summary issue seems to be an unrelated bug with how the hashbar is being written. It appears that the "Completed" hashbar is overwriting the transaction summary display and effectively hiding a couple of lines of the transaction. Enabling -v is an effective workaround as it disables the unfortunately garbled effect of the default hashbar display. So as of now the zif install rhc case apepars to have been fixed. flash-plugin update case awaits. Unfortunately this one is going to be harder to replicate. You would need to have an older flash-plugin already installed on system to trigger the scenario. I could make my current rpmdb available to you so you could try to replicate the problem. -jef
Comment 13 Kevin Kofler 2011-09-23 20:14:24 UTC
The flash-plugin case is actually quite simple to explain: it's a 32-bit-only package, your system is 64-bit. Saying just "flash-plugin" with no arch suffix matches only x86_64 and noarch packages, you have to write "flash-plugin.i386" explicitly.
Comment 14 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-23 20:40:38 UTC
Kevin, Interesting thought. but sadly doesn't appear to resolve the issue. ./zif -v -n update flash-plugin.i386 does not work. Nor does ./zif -v -n install adobeair.i386 work Nor for that matter does ./zif -v -n install libxslt.i686 work libxslt,i686 is provided in the Fedora repository and is installable via yum. I even tried changing multilib_policy to "all" from "best" with no change. Kevin, can you please attempt to install libxslt.i686 on a 64bit system as provided by the standard fedore repositories (any branch)? For completeness verbose output using my local build of git zif pulled today. ./zif -v -n update flash-plugin.i386 TI:12:28:00 Zif version 0.2.5 TI:12:28:00 using config /usr/local/etc/zif/zif.conf TI:12:28:00 loading config file /usr/local/etc/zif/zif.conf TI:12:28:00 no override file specified Action: Updating Percentage: 1 TI:12:28:00 abandoning cache Allow cancel: FALSE Action: Loading installed Detail: / TI:12:28:00 not using yumdb lookup as disabled TI:12:28:00 using rpmdb at / TI:12:28:02 using history lookup TI:12:28:02 trying to open database '/var/lib/zif/history.db' Allow cancel: TRUE Percentage: 4 TI:12:28:02 done, so cancelling action loading-rpmdb Percentage: 5 TI:12:28:02 setting releasever '15' Percentage: 6 No packages found (after filter) -jef
Comment 15 Richard Hughes 2011-09-24 09:01:51 UTC
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #10) > Okay so the transaction summary issue seems to be an unrelated bug with how the > hashbar is being written. It appears that the "Completed" hashbar is > overwriting the transaction summary display and effectively hiding a couple of > lines of the transaction. commit 5709b5a13cabc125d761dd81be7e12475c2d3f33 Author: Richard Hughes <email@example.com> Date: Sat Sep 24 09:33:43 2011 +0100 Don't overwrite the last two lines of additional deps (In reply to comment #14) > Nor does ./zif -v -n install adobeair.i386 work > No packages found (after filter) There's a logic bug in zif_package_array_filter_best_arch() -- I'll fix this on Monday. This should only affect installing using the Zif CLI, using git master and PackageKit should work fine. Thanks.
Comment 16 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-24 16:34:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #15) small suggestion, you might want to add some logic in git master make check to test the zif cmdline tool that is built from git master as well as the library API against the same finite set of test transactions. -jef
Comment 17 Richard Hughes 2011-09-26 17:13:20 UTC
Okay, can somebody check with master or one of my snapshot srpms please. This seems to work for me now. Thanks.
Comment 18 Stephen John Smoogen 2011-09-26 19:22:26 UTC
I am able to install and see the rhc command with the snapshot rpm for F15 rebuilt for F16.
Comment 19 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-26 19:34:50 UTC
Using git master rebuild locally I think I can confirm the fix. /usr/local/bin/zif install adobeair.i386 succeeds with alure-1.0-5.fc15.i686 installed on system /usr/local/bin/zif update alure succeeds and picks up alure-1.2-1.fc15.i686 (updates) /usr/local/bin/zif install adobeair fails Just noting it for completeness not suggesting this is intended or not as per the design on what zif is supposed to do in this case. It is different than yum cmdline behavior and thus I note it as zif still advertises itself in the manpage as yum compatible. Such deviation with regard to 32bit package handling may break local admin scripted action. If the design of the zif cmdline tool is meant to deliberately diverge with regard to 32bit handling on 64bit systems, this should be documented and communicated, possibly in the manpage or at least a passing reference in the manpage to a longer incompatibility document for admins to review. -jef
Comment 20 Richard Hughes 2011-09-27 09:25:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #19) > /usr/local/bin/zif install adobeair > fails This is unintentional. I've fixed this with: commit f3cec94a361b95537dd2452c9b49e3fe8809ea47 Author: Richard Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue Sep 27 10:22:34 2011 +0100 When specifying resolving with prefer-native, re-search non-native if there are no package results Resolves https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739701 for good. :) Can you please verify again please. Thanks!
Comment 21 Jef Spaleta 2011-09-27 17:26:30 UTC
Looks like the 32bit adobeair install works now and in a compatible way with yum. Here's the summary for completeness. time zif -n install adobeair Transaction summary: Installing: 1. adobeair-2.6.0-19170.i386 (adobe-linux-i386) Installing for dependencies: 1. libxml2-2.7.8-6.fc15.i686 (fedora) 2. libxslt-1.1.26-8.fc15.i686 (fedora) Automatically declined action real 0m5.215s user 0m4.641s sys 0m0.456s that looks as I expect on a 64bit system and matches yum's transaction. time yum --assumeno install adobeair Setting up Install Process ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: adobeair i386 2.6.0-19170 adobe-linux-i386 20 M Installing for dependencies: libxml2 i686 2.7.8-6.fc15 fedora 795 k libxslt i686 1.1.26-8.fc15 fedora 226 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 1 Package (+2 Dependent packages) Exiting on user Command Your transaction was saved, rerun it with: yum load-transaction /tmp/yum_save_tx.2011-09-27.09-23.BfKu2y.yumtx real 0m1.454s user 0m1.272s sys 0m0.170s
Comment 22 Richard Hughes 2011-09-27 17:37:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #21) > Looks like the 32bit adobeair install works now and in a compatible way with > yum. Yay, thanks all. Please reopen if there's anything that I've missed. They'll be a new release on the 3rd October, and I'll push it to F16 then.