Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1283255
downgrade doesn't resolve dependencies automatically
Last modified: 2017-02-13 05:22:55 EST
Description of problem: If I want to downgrade a package, I have to manually list all of its dependencies and downgrade them as well. That's tiresome and difficult to do. Could you please make downgrade operation automatically downgrade necessary dependencies as well? Very simple example: $ sudo dnf downgrade nautilus Last metadata expiration check performed 2:16:29 ago on Wed Nov 18 13:02:40 2015. Error: package nautilus-3.18.1-1.fc23.x86_64 requires nautilus-extensions(x86-64) = 3.18.1-1.fc23, but none of the providers can be installed (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages) $ sudo dnf downgrade nautilus* Last metadata expiration check performed 2:16:31 ago on Wed Nov 18 13:02:40 2015. Dependencies resolved. ============================================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================================================================================ Downgrading: nautilus x86_64 3.18.1-1.fc23 fedora 2.4 M nautilus-extensions x86_64 3.18.1-1.fc23 fedora 81 k Transaction Summary ============================================================================================================================================ Downgrade 2 Packages dnf-1.1.3-1.fc23.noarch
Well, what does exactly mean necessary dependencies? All dependencies down to e.g. glibc? Or dependencies which somehow conflict with downgraded nautilus version? (This is what's going on now.) Maybe you just wanted to remove latest nautilus update in which case # dnf history list nautilus # dnf history undo <id-of-last-update-transaction> would do the job for you.
(In reply to Michael Mráka from comment #1) > Or dependencies which somehow conflict with downgraded nautilus version? > (This is what's going on now.) Yes, that's what I meant. In this case it's really simple, 'nautilus*' solves it, but in some cases, you need include many differently named packages in the set, and you need to go one by one, manually adding one additional package to the downgrade line, try again, read the error, add another package, try again, read the error, ... until you have listed everything needed on the command line. I assume dnf should be able to figure this out automatically, i.e. find out the smallest set of packages available in the repos that need to be installed on the system in order to have the package in question downgraded while all dependencies are satisfied. In most cases this means downgrading a set of packages (in some cases it can also mean installing or removing some). > > Maybe you just wanted to remove latest nautilus update in which case > # dnf history list nautilus > # dnf history undo <id-of-last-update-transaction> > would do the job for you. No, I really wanted to downgrade a package :) I'm from Fedora QA, I spend a large portion of my time using unreleased builds/updates, or comparing those unreleased builds with older builds (either from repos or from koji), and downgrading is a very common operation for me. It would be great if it could resolve the deps automatically and I didn't have to spend that much time doing it manually. Btw, "history undo" is handy but very limited, e.g. it doesn't work if one update replaces an older update in "updates" repo (because then there's nothing to go back to, you need to downgrade to the version in "fedora" repo, for which you need the "downgrade" command). But that's just a side remark.
Probably we should add `SOLVER_FLAG_ALLOW_DOWNGRADE` flag into the depsolver not blindly set downgrade for all dependencies beforehand.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. 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 '23'. 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 23 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.
It should be fixed by Pull-request: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/666
Bugs fixed in version of dnf-2.0.1-1.
Thanks!