Bug 1062010 - [depcheck error reporting] explain that unexcluding a package should help
Summary: [depcheck error reporting] explain that unexcluding a package should help
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf
Version: 20
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
low
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Honza Silhan
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-02-06 03:57 UTC by Chris Murphy
Modified: 2015-06-30 00:53 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-30 00:53:27 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
debugdata.tar (6.36 MB, application/x-tar)
2014-02-06 03:57 UTC, Chris Murphy
no flags Details


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1183120 0 high CLOSED RFE: provide a means of accessing the problems raised by resolve 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC
Red Hat Bugzilla 1197456 0 low CLOSED [RFE] implement `strict` config option (defaults=True) 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1183120 1197456

Description Chris Murphy 2014-02-06 03:57:36 UTC
Created attachment 859944 [details]
debugdata.tar

Description of problem:
Trying to install gcc and I get an error.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dnf-0.4.12-1.fc20.noarch
hawkey-0.4.9-1.fc20.x86_64

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. dnf install gcc
2.
3.

Actual results:
package gcc-4.8.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires glibc-devel >= 2.2.90-12, but none of the providers can be installed


Expected results:
Download and install gcc

Additional info:

Comment 1 Chris Murphy 2014-02-06 04:01:24 UTC
yum install gcc works, but provides different versions than dnf proposed:

 gcc                    x86_64          4.8.2-7.fc20  
glibc-devel            x86_64          2.18-12.fc20

Comment 2 Ales Kozumplik 2014-02-06 09:01:15 UTC
Chris, the attached debugdata.tar is missing Dropbox.repo.gz. Is this on purpose?

Comment 3 Ales Kozumplik 2014-02-06 09:07:12 UTC
Do you exclude some packages in the config file/repo config files btw?

Comment 4 Ales Kozumplik 2014-02-06 13:05:48 UTC
Debugging this we think that dnf is configured to exclude kernel*. This causes the solver to only look for an older version of glibc-devel to install and that one is not installable. The fix could be in providing a clearer message why that happened. Lowering priority of this bug for now.

Comment 5 Ales Kozumplik 2014-02-06 13:12:33 UTC
(we should be displaying all the problem rules probably, not use the heuristics inherent to solver_findproblemrules())

Comment 6 Chris Murphy 2014-02-06 19:47:44 UTC
I left Dropbox.repo.gz out because I thought it was unrelated and unnecessarily added to the attachment size. When I ran the command, /etc/dnf/dnf.conf did have a line: exclude=kernel* because I run koji kernels and without this dnf insists on installing f20 kernels that I don't need.

Comment 7 Ales Kozumplik 2014-02-10 08:30:02 UTC
(In reply to Chris Murphy from comment #6)
> I left Dropbox.repo.gz out because I thought it was unrelated and
> unnecessarily added to the attachment size. When I ran the command,
> /etc/dnf/dnf.conf did have a line: exclude=kernel* because I run koji
> kernels and without this dnf insists on installing f20 kernels that I don't
> need.

OK so there's you original problem---there's no kernel-headers available then to fullfil the glibc-devel dep.

I'll leave this open though, on low prio, because we might want to fix the error message to be clearer.

Comment 8 Honza Silhan 2014-10-16 12:58:54 UTC
it should show solutions from libsolv, I will look at that.

Comment 9 Fedora End Of Life 2015-05-29 10:49:35 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '20'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 10 Fedora End Of Life 2015-06-30 00:53:27 UTC
Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.