Description of problem:
I have set installonly_limit=4 in /etc/yum.conf and /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, and now packagitkit always ask for deletion the last kernel , I think that use defaults
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Wait for updates
Ago 24 01:16:54 segulix PackageKit: new update-packages transaction /40777_ddddcbcc scheduled from uid 500
Ago 24 01:16:56 segulix PackageKit: in /40777_ddddcbcc for update-packages package kernel;4.0.8-200.fc21;x86_64;installed:/kernel-4.0.8-200.fc21.x86_64 was removing for uid 500
Ago 24 01:16:56 segulix PackageKit: in /40777_ddddcbcc for update-packages package kernel-core;4.0.8-200.fc21;x86_64;installed:/kernel-core-4.0.8-200.fc21.x86_64 was removing for uid 500
Ago 24 01:16:56 segulix PackageKit: in /40777_ddddcbcc for update-packages package kernel-modules;4.0.8-200.fc21;x86_64;installed:/kernel-modules-4.0.8-200.fc21.x86_64 was removing for uid 500
Ago 24 01:16:56 segulix PackageKit: in /40777_ddddcbcc for update-packages package gnome-software;3.14.7-1.fc21;x86_64;updates was updating for uid 500
Ago 24 01:16:56 segulix PackageKit: update-packages transaction /40777_ddddcbcc from uid 500 finished with success after 1316ms
Since the only backend available is default , this is packagekit problem .
We got 2 questions in ask , one really question and one issue :
Please replay something
Why would libhif read dnf.conf? PackageKit doesn't use dnf, it only shares libraries used by dnf so it would be a bit peculiar to share a config file...
This message is a reminder that Fedora 21 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 21. 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bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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'
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 21 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.
In future will be nice, libhif follow one custom configuration .
Also we can't make apper exclude packages .
*** Bug 1237014 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1280590 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1288587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Re comment #5
PackageKit (and dnf) will honor
directives added to .repo files under /etc/yum.repos.d/ (for any/all repos you want to be skipped and excluded)
*** Bug 1307217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #9)
> Re comment #5
> PackageKit (and dnf) will honor
> directives added to .repo files under /etc/yum.repos.d/ (for any/all repos
> you want to be skipped and excluded)
I'm testing /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo with:
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
but shouldn't libhif have one file the define the defaults ? for example /etc/libhif.conf
As an admin user, I don't want to have two configuration files for the same topic, but I want to have package management acting the same on the command line and in whichever GUI.
(in 1307217, I complained that the versionlock plugin wasn't taken into account)
This accepted as a valid user story, the question "Is it possible to use yum backend for PackageKit on Fedora 21?" can be rewritten to "Is it possible to use dnf backend for PackageKit on Fedora 22+?"
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #11)
doesn't work PackageKit removed my 4th kernel
Re: comment 12
My own prior comments about moving directives to .repo files were only about include/exclude statements. You all are right, that some directives are dnf-only.
*** Bug 1328677 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1338975 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Repeated from the Bug 1338975 duplicate, which is not about dnf.conf but about the .repo files, which definitely are used by PK...
I have a repo with:
# Only use this repo for foo
where the repo contains two packages, foo and libzip-1.1.2-1.fc23.x86_64, which is newer than the libzip in the Fedora repos.
DNF does not try to update libzip, because I said to only include foo from [a-repo], but packagekit ignores the 'includepkgs' and keeps trying to update libzip to the version from [a-repo].
This effectively makes per-repository 'includepkgs' and 'exclude' useless unless I either never use PackageKit, or carefully vet all updates PackageKit does to ensure that 'foo' isn't updated from that repo.
PackageKit should support everything in a .repo file that's documented in yum.conf(5)
include exclude=foo in section of /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo make crash packagekitd
please someone do something .
*** Bug 1425925 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I have noticed this running apper under Fedora 25 ; its very unexpected behaviour that the command line differs from the GUI and there is no (apparent) way of configuring the GUI to behave the same.
Further I want to exclude certain packages from update and even using the workaround of adding exclude to yum.conf, while it works on the CLI, it fails with the apper GUI. Tested on Fedora 25. Further wildcards don't work with packagekit (but they do with CLI) so individual packages have to be listed manually.
Re: comment 21
For package exclusion, see comment #9 , that packagekit does honor include/exclude in individual .repo files
2 years later , this does not work ! , should we remove it from the system ?
I tried adding the exclude to the repo file and packagekit still says it will update it. I have to tell the users not to do any updates or their laptops will stop working...
I can confirm exclude= (still) works for me on my f26 box. My test was adding
and indeed a firefox update in -testing disappears after I do a 'pkcon refresh'
*** Bug 1349518 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Further I have noticed, as mentioned in Bug 1338975 and in a comment above. If I add
to a particular repository file, while the command line"dnf update" correctly notices and applies that, the apper gui (using PackageKit underneath) does _not_ use this configuration directive and attempts to use other packages from the aforementioned repository. The GUI should be consistent with the CLI to provide a quality user experience.
I am using Fedora 26.
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #25)
> I can confirm exclude= (still) works for me on my f26 box. My test was
> to /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo
> and indeed a firefox update in -testing disappears after I do a 'pkcon
That does not work for me.
I add exclude=*nvidia* to /etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion-nonfree-updates.repo, and the nvidia driver updates still show up after a 'pkcon refresh'
And I can (still) confirm that it works for me on f28. My test case was again something from updates-testing. My test case this time was adding
to successfully avoid not updating to
(which is currently in updates-testing)
No idea how/why this doesn't work for everyone else.
Found the difference.
with explicit package names works as expected. Using globs does not work.
Listing every package individually works:
but as Rex said, globs don't work. This only excludes 'synergy' and neither of the slinux-policy* packages (on f27):
I hope adding globbing support isn't too hard.