Bug 1143773 - perl update to 5.20.1-309.fc22 falls apart if perl-PlRPC was installed
Summary: perl update to 5.20.1-309.fc22 falls apart if perl-PlRPC was installed
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: perl
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jitka Plesnikova
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-09-18 00:48 UTC by Michal Jaegermann
Modified: 2014-09-25 13:38 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-09-25 13:38:38 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michal Jaegermann 2014-09-18 00:48:58 UTC
Description of problem:

If perl-PlRPC-0.2020-16.fc21.noarch happened to be present on the system then updating perl, and all related/dependent packages, does not work as there is no way to satisfy dependencies.  The package in question lists in dependencies perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1) and that is it.  Even --skip-broken does not help in any way.

It appears that perl-PlRPC is no longer available in rawhide, even if it is still listed as a component.  Maybe that would be not an issue but apparently nothing gets that on a list of "obsoletes" or removes in any other way.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
perl-5.20.1-309.fc22

Additional info:
Manually removing perl-PlRPC allows an update to proceed.  None of "rawhide reports" lists perl-PlRPC as a broken dependency.

Comment 1 Jitka Plesnikova 2014-09-23 07:04:33 UTC
perl-PlRPC was not provided or required by perl rpm and the setting of perl-PlRPC as obsolete in perl does not seem to be good idea.
It could also bring another problem. It will be also removed, if somebody installs perl-PlRPC, which works with the latest Perl, from third-party repository.

Removing of the package was reported at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-June/199572.html

You can find a list of orphaned packages (i.e. packages not in the repositories anymore) with: package-cleanup --orphans.

Comment 2 Michal Jaegermann 2014-09-23 09:00:32 UTC
(In reply to Jitka Plesnikova from comment #1)
> perl-PlRPC was not provided or required by perl rpm

And that is here relevant how?  A dependency was pulled out by an update of a perl package without making a dependant "obsolete".

> It will be also removed, if somebody
> installs perl-PlRPC, which works with the latest Perl, from third-party
> repository.

If you will look more carefully then this report is really about that perl-PlRPC
was NOT removed and this is causing serious update problems.  The package itself was pulled in by some dependencies in the past, now I cannot tell really why, and surely not installed on its own merits.  If an update would really removed it you would not see any bug report about it.

> Removing of the package was reported at
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-June/199572.html

So you propose that in case of update troubles an end user should wade through old archives of some mailing list on an off-chance that s/he will find there something which will shed some ligth?  You cannot be serious.

As you can find out from the report I managed to go around that obstacle; thank you very much.  The worry is how a regular "Joe User" is supposed to do such thing.

Comment 3 Petr Šabata 2014-09-25 13:38:38 UTC
I understand it's unpleasant but there's nothing (reasonable) that can be done about this.  The proper way to resolve the situation is to manually remove the package from your system, as you've already mentioned in the bug description.

The module isn't obsoleted or provided by anything;  it's simply not available anymore.

I see perl-PlRPC was properly retired and blocked in Koji in accordance with the EndOfLife process.  The package was removed for security reasons -- see bug #1051110.

Perhaps yum/dnf could assist users in those situations better in the future.


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