Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): dnf-0.4.20-1.fc20.noarch How reproducible: 100 % Steps to Reproduce: 0. Get a F20 system with following packages installed: clang llvm llvm-libs mesa-dri-drivers mesa-libxatracker E.g. $ rpm -q clang llvm llvm-libs mesa-dri-drivers mesa-libxatracker clang-3.3-4.fc20.x86_64 llvm-3.3-4.fc20.x86_64 llvm-libs-3.3-4.fc20.x86_64 mesa-dri-drivers-10.0.4-1.20140312.fc20.x86_64 mesa-libxatracker-10.0.4-1.20140312.fc20.x86_64 1. Download a newer version of those packages from koji: $ koji download-build llvm-3.4-6.fc20 --arch=x86_64 $ koji download-build mesa-10.1-6.20140305.fc20 --arch=x86_64 2. Try to upgrade existing packages with downloaded RPM files: $ sudo dnf --debugsolver upgrade clang-3.4-6.fc20.x86_64.rpm llvm-3.4-6.fc20.x86_64.rpm llvm-libs-3.4-6.fc20.x86_64.rpm mesa-dri-drivers-10.1-6.20140305.fc20.x86_64.rpm mesa-libxatracker-10.1-6.20140305.fc20.x86_64.rpm Actual results: Resolving dependencies --> Starting dependency resolution ---> Package clang.i686 3.3-4.fc20 will be installed ---> Package libffi.i686 3.0.13-5.fc20 will be installed ---> Package zlib.i686 1.2.8-3.fc20 will be installed ---> Package llvm.i686 3.3-4.fc20 will be installed ---> Package llvm-libs.i686 3.3-4.fc20 will be installed ---> Package glibc.i686 2.18-12.fc20 will be installed ---> Package libgcc.i686 4.8.2-7.fc20 will be installed ---> Package libstdc++.i686 4.8.2-7.fc20 will be installed ---> Package nss-softokn-freebl.i686 3.16.0-1.fc20 will be installed ---> Package clang.x86_64 3.3-4.fc20 will be upgraded ---> Package clang.x86_64 3.4-6.fc20 will be an upgrade ---> Package llvm.x86_64 3.3-4.fc20 will be upgraded ---> Package llvm.x86_64 3.4-6.fc20 will be an upgrade ---> Package llvm-libs.x86_64 3.3-4.fc20 will be upgraded ---> Package llvm-libs.x86_64 3.4-6.fc20 will be an upgrade ---> Package mesa-dri-drivers.x86_64 10.0.4-1.20140312.fc20 will be upgraded ---> Package mesa-dri-drivers.x86_64 10.1-6.20140305.fc20 will be an upgrade ---> Package mesa-libxatracker.x86_64 10.0.4-1.20140312.fc20 will be upgraded ---> Package mesa-libxatracker.x86_64 10.1-6.20140305.fc20 will be an upgrade --> Finished dependency resolution Dependencies resolved. ============================================================================================================================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================================================================================================================= Installing: clang i686 3.3-4.fc20 updates 0 libffi i686 3.0.13-5.fc20 fedora 0 zlib i686 1.2.8-3.fc20 fedora 0 llvm i686 3.3-4.fc20 updates 0 llvm-libs i686 3.3-4.fc20 updates 0 glibc i686 2.18-12.fc20 updates 0 libgcc i686 4.8.2-7.fc20 updates 0 libstdc++ i686 4.8.2-7.fc20 updates 0 nss-softokn-freebl i686 3.16.0-1.fc20 updates 0 Upgrading: clang x86_64 3.4-6.fc20 @commandline 0 llvm x86_64 3.4-6.fc20 @commandline 0 llvm-libs x86_64 3.4-6.fc20 @commandline 0 mesa-dri-drivers x86_64 10.1-6.20140305.fc20 @commandline 0 mesa-libxatracker x86_64 10.1-6.20140305.fc20 @commandline 0 Transaction Summary ============================================================================================================================================================================= Install 9 Packages Upgrade 5 Packages -> DNF wants to install i686 packages without apparent reason. I'm not able to find a reason for it. Note that this system doesn't have any i686 packages installed: $ rpm -qa | grep i686 | wc -l 0 Expected results: DNF does not install any i686 packages when unnecessary. Additional info: I'm sorry if I overlooked some apparent reason for this!
Created attachment 887211 [details] rpm -qa output
I was brave enough to say 'y' to the question above and DNF exited with a backtrace: Downloading Packages: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/bin/dnf", line 35, in <module> main.user_main(sys.argv[1:], exit_code=True) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 242, in user_main errcode = main(args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 75, in main return _main(base, args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 156, in _main return_code, resultmsgs = base.do_transaction() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/cli.py", line 214, in do_transaction self.download_packages(downloadpkgs, self.output.progress, total_cb) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 909, in download_packages errors = dnf.repo.download_payloads(payloads, drpm) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/repo.py", line 97, in download_payloads targets = [pload.librepo_target() for pload in payloads] File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/repo.py", line 278, in librepo_target target_dct.update(self._target_params()) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/repo.py", line 289, in _target_params ctype, csum = pkg.returnIdSum() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/package.py", line 174, in returnIdSum (chksum_type, chksum) = self.chksum File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/package.py", line 52, in chksum return super(Package, self).chksum AttributeError: No such checksum. This happens even if I run "dnf clean all" before the attempt. Adding --noplugins doesn't change anything.
Hmm, maybe I have found what it is trying to install old clang package from repos: $ rpm -q clang-analyzer clang-analyzer-3.3-4.fc20.noarch $ rpm -q -R clang-analyzer /usr/bin/env clang = 3.3-4.fc20 perl(Cwd) perl(Digest::MD5) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Find) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Temp) perl(FindBin) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Term::ANSIColor) perl(Text::ParseWords) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) python rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Unfortunatelly, this is not apparent from log messages printed by DNF. Some information why is a package planed for installation would be handy...
Hello, thank you for the report. You are right. Then it isn't a bug, is it? As for: (In reply to Petr Spacek from comment #3) > AttributeError: No such checksum. please see bug 1086073. As for: (In reply to Petr Spacek from comment #4) > Unfortunatelly, this is not apparent from log messages printed by DNF. Some > information why is a package planed for installation would be handy... please see the second paragraph of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044999#c1.