Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 file /usr/share/doc/glibc/INSTALL from install of glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64
I need glibc both i686 and x86_64
(In reply to Ömer Fadıl Usta from comment #0) > Error: Transaction check error: > file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686 > conflicts with file from package glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 > file /usr/share/doc/glibc/INSTALL from install of > glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package > glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 This does not seem to be a multilib conflict, but an incomplete upgrade. Can you tell us the dnf command line you used, and show us the complete output?
sudo dnf install glibc.i686 Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'mongodb-org-3.0' from 'https://repo.mongodb.org/yum/redhat/24/mongodb-org/3.0/x86_64/': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried, disabling. Last metadata expiration check performed 2:29:48 ago on Thu Nov 5 13:18:00 2015. Dependencies resolved. =============================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size =============================================================================================================================== Installing: glibc i686 2.22.90-13.fc24 rawhide 4.4 M nss-softokn-freebl i686 3.20.1-1.fc24 rawhide 196 k Transaction Summary =============================================================================================================================== Install 2 Packages Total size: 4.5 M Installed size: 16 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: [SKIPPED] glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] nss-softokn-freebl-3.20.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm: Already downloaded Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test The downloaded packages were saved in cache till the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/share/doc/glibc/INSTALL from install of glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 Error Summary -------------
(In reply to Ömer Fadıl Usta from comment #3) > sudo dnf install glibc.i686 Can you try upgrading glibc first? I expect this will work. If true, this would be a dnf UI issue.
What you mean upgrade ? glibc.i686 didn't installed before. So this is not a upgrade. But i have found that glibc-common-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 and glibc-common-2.22.90-13.fc24.x86_64 glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.x86_64 Installed together. I don't know why glibc-2.22-90-13 didn't remove -10 to upgrade itself. After i remove glibc-common-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 I can install .i686 without any problem. I never guest it before it might be 2 different version of glibc x86 might be installed in same time. So it looks like problem solved. If anyone hit same bug please check if 2 differen version of glibc installed or not Result : Problem solved
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle. Changing version to '24'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase
Same problem here. If glibc i686 and x86-64 are both installed, a conflict will occur while upgrading. Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 We must remove glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 manually and retry upgrading to solve the problem.
(In reply to guoxiao from comment #7) > Same problem here. > > If glibc i686 and x86-64 are both installed, a conflict will occur while > upgrading. > > Error: Transaction check error: > file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 > conflicts with file from package glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 > > We must remove glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 manually and retry upgrading to > solve the problem. Do you use yum?
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #8) > (In reply to guoxiao from comment #7) > > Same problem here. > > > > If glibc i686 and x86-64 are both installed, a conflict will occur while > > upgrading. > > > > Error: Transaction check error: > > file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 > > conflicts with file from package glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 > > > > We must remove glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 manually and retry upgrading to > > solve the problem. > > Do you use yum? I used dnf in Fedora 24. The following is the full output: % sudo dnf update glibc Last metadata expiration check: 0:29:01 ago on Mon Aug 22 12:02:34 2016. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================================== Upgrading: glibc i686 2.23.1-10.fc24 updates 4.3 M Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================================== Upgrade 1 Package Total download size: 4.3 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24_2.23.1-10.fc24.i686.drpm 455 kB/s | 668 kB 00:01 /var/cache/dnf/updates-c4f1c95f64c2b794/packages/glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24_2.23.1-10.fc24.i686.drpm: md5 mismatch of result glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686: Delta RPM rebuild failed glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686.rpm 2.4 MB/s | 4.3 MB 00:01 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 578 kB/s | 4.9 MB 00:08 Delta RPMs reduced 4.3 MB of updates to 4.9 MB (-15.1% saved) Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/share/doc/glibc/NEWS from install of glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 Error Summary -------------
Thanks. What is the output from this command? rpm -q glibc glibc-common
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #10) > Thanks. What is the output from this command? > > rpm -q glibc glibc-common % rpm -q glibc glibc-common glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 glibc-common-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64
(In reply to guoxiao from comment #11) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #10) > > Thanks. What is the output from this command? > > > > rpm -q glibc glibc-common > > % rpm -q glibc glibc-common > glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 > glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 > glibc-common-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 I manually removed glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 and successfully upgraded glibc. So there are only glibc-2.23.1-10 now on my machine.
(In reply to Ömer Fadıl Usta from comment #5) > What you mean upgrade ? glibc.i686 didn't installed before. So this is not a > upgrade. > But i have found that > glibc-common-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 > glibc-2.22.90-11.fc24.x86_64 > and > glibc-common-2.22.90-13.fc24.x86_64 > glibc-2.22.90-13.fc24.x86_64 > > Installed together. I don't know why glibc-2.22-90-13 didn't remove -10 to > upgrade itself. This happens if you hit Ctrl-C during an update, for instance. dnf does not cope well with this situation. Per comment 12, guoxiao's issue is the same. dnf should not allow multiple installations of several versions of glibc, or explain the situation and offer the system administrator to recover. Either way, this is a dnf bug. Reassigning.
(In reply to guoxiao from comment #12) > (In reply to guoxiao from comment #11) > > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #10) > > > Thanks. What is the output from this command? > > > > > > rpm -q glibc glibc-common > > > > % rpm -q glibc glibc-common > > glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 > > glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 > > glibc-common-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 > > I manually removed glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 and successfully upgraded > glibc. So there are only glibc-2.23.1-10 now on my machine. By running `dnf history info` I found the info of the failed transaction. glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 and glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 were both installed before upgrading. Transaction ID : 834 Begin time : Sat Aug 20 23:30:19 2016 Begin rpmdb : 3024:bfdf051d04ee8fc06b7a926318026815c293ac64 User : admin <admin> Return-Code : ** Aborted ** Command Line : update Transaction performed with: Downgraded dnf-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing Installed rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.27.fc24.x86_64 @updates-testing Packages Altered: ** Upgrade dnf-1.1.10-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded dnf-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgrade dnf-automatic-1.1.10-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded dnf-automatic-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgrade dnf-conf-1.1.10-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded dnf-conf-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgraded dnf-plugins-core-0.1.21-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgrade 0.1.21-3.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgrade dnf-yum-1.1.10-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded dnf-yum-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgraded firewalld-0.4.3.2-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgrade 0.4.3.3-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded firewalld-filesystem-0.4.3.2-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgrade 0.4.3.3-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgrade glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.i686 @updates Upgrade glibc-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.i686 @updates ** Upgraded glibc-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 @updates Upgrade glibc-all-langpacks-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 (unknown) ** Upgraded glibc-all-langpacks-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 @updates Upgrade glibc-common-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded glibc-common-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade glibc-devel-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded glibc-devel-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade glibc-headers-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded glibc-headers-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade glibc-static-2.23.1-10.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded glibc-static-2.23.1-8.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded google-chrome-unstable-54.0.2824.0-1.x86_64 @google-chrome ** Upgrade 54.0.2832.2-1.x86_64 @google-chrome ** Upgraded nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded nss-softokn-3.25.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded nss-softokn-freebl-3.25.0-1.0.fc24.i686 @updates ** Upgraded nss-softokn-freebl-3.25.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.i686 @updates Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 (unknown) ** Upgraded nss-sysinit-3.25.0-1.2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded nss-tools-3.25.0-1.2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded nss-util-3.25.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 @updates Upgrade 3.26.0-1.0.fc24.x86_64 (unknown) ** Upgrade python3-dnf-1.1.10-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded python3-dnf-1.1.9-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgraded python3-dnf-plugins-core-0.1.21-2.fc24.noarch @updates-testing ** Upgrade 0.1.21-3.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded python3-firewall-0.4.3.2-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgrade 0.4.3.3-1.fc24.noarch @updates ** Upgraded systemd-229-12.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 229-13.fc24.x86_64 (unknown) ** Upgraded systemd-compat-libs-229-12.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 229-13.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded systemd-container-229-12.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 229-13.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded systemd-devel-229-12.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 229-13.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded systemd-libs-229-12.fc24.x86_64 @updates Upgrade 229-13.fc24.x86_64 (unknown) ** Upgraded systemd-udev-229-12.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 229-13.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-adsl-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-bluetooth-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-glib-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-libnm-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-team-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-wifi-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgraded NetworkManager-wwan-1:1.2.2-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates ** Upgrade 1:1.2.4-2.fc24.x86_64 @updates
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #13) > This happens if you hit Ctrl-C during an update, for instance. dnf does not > cope well with this situation. Per comment 12, guoxiao's issue is the same. > > dnf should not allow multiple installations of several versions of glibc, or > explain the situation and offer the system administrator to recover. Either > way, this is a dnf bug. Reassigning. For the record i never interrupt any installation or update/upgrade operation either with ctrl-c/d/x nor with with any electricity issue. The interesting thing is that only glibc package caused these problems in all of installed packages. I don't have any fedora installed box right now so i couldn't reproduce same or simular bug again. [btw sorry about my english]
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1284981 ***
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #16) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1284981 *** I'm not sure if this is appropriate. Even if the “restore” plugin existed, the user would not know it is needed in this situation.