Bug 1309408 - [RFE] Add docs that --best is showing more details on broken package dependencies
Summary: [RFE] Add docs that --best is showing more details on broken package dependen...
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf
Version: 23
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Packaging Maintenance Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: Reopened
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-02-17 17:35 UTC by Christian Stadelmann
Modified: 2016-04-13 07:22 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2016-04-13 07:22:23 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christian Stadelmann 2016-02-17 17:35:27 UTC
Description of problem:
I like the fact that dnf dropped yums --skip-broken flag but skips broken packages by default and tells the user that it did. It would be nice to get more details on broken dependencies to fix those packages.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dnf-1.1.6-2.fc23.noarch
rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.11.fc23.x86_64
librepo-1.7.16-2.fc23.x86_64
libsolv-0.6.14-7.fc23.x86_64

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. try to upgrade to a package with broken dependencies
2. watch dnf output

Actual results:
dnf lists packages skipped for upgrade due to broken dependencies

Expected results:
More info on why dependency is broken. Perhaps through an additional command line flag, to prevent unnecessary output. Or only when specifying `--verbose` to dnf.

Additional info:
I searched the documentation and couldn't find such a flag. Maybe it already exists but I don't know that.
I know of `--depsolver`, but it doesn't include this info on broken dependencies as far as I can tell.
Using `--allowerasing` can help, but usually doesn't.
Manually querying all package dependencies is possible but hard to do.
Running `dnf repoclosure` doesn't find this broken dependency (I don't know why and I can't find out why).

Comment 1 Michal Domonkos 2016-02-22 12:44:53 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1302216 ***

Comment 2 Honza Silhan 2016-02-22 12:45:32 UTC
here [1] is the `--best` option use case documented.

[1] http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/user_faq.html#why-are-dnf-check-update-packages-not-marked-for-upgrade-in-the-following-dnf-upgrade

Comment 3 Christian Stadelmann 2016-02-22 13:21:59 UTC
Ok, so since this was not the first bug report opened and this feature I requested before is already implemented, it looks more like an issue for users to find it. In my case I searched `man dnf` for `broken` or `broken dependencies`. I guess this is what the man page should state:

Current text:
Try the best available package versions in transactions. Specifically  during  dnf upgrade, which by default skips over updates that can not be installed for  dependency reasons, the switch forces DNF to only consider the latest packages and possibly fail giving a reason why the latest version can not be installed.

Proposed text (note that English is not my first language so corrections are welcome):
Try the best available package versions in transactions. Specifically  during  dnf upgrade, which by default skips over updates that can not be installed for  dependency reasons, the switch forces DNF to only consider the latest packages. When running into packages with broken dependencies, DNF will fail giving a reason why the latest version can not be installed.

Comment 4 Honza Silhan 2016-03-07 12:10:50 UTC
PR: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/453

Comment 5 Mike McCune 2016-03-28 23:16:15 UTC
This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune@redhat.com with any questions

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2016-04-06 14:39:11 UTC
dnf-plugins-core-0.1.20-1.fc24 dnf-1.1.8-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5dae5d2add

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2016-04-07 10:02:27 UTC
dnf-1.1.8-1.fc23 dnf-plugins-core-0.1.20-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ddeabfcfe6

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2016-04-07 16:54:37 UTC
dnf-1.1.8-1.fc24, dnf-plugins-core-0.1.20-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5dae5d2add

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-04-08 16:59:28 UTC
dnf-1.1.8-1.fc24, dnf-plugins-core-0.1.20-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-04-08 20:51:46 UTC
dnf-1.1.8-1.fc23, dnf-plugins-core-0.1.20-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ddeabfcfe6

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-04-13 07:21:52 UTC
dnf-1.1.8-1.fc23, dnf-plugins-core-0.1.20-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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