Description of problem: sqlite cannot be upgraded from 3.10.2 to 3.11.0 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): sqlite-3.11.0-1.fc23.x86_64 and sqlite-3.10.2-1.fc23.x86_64 How reproducible: every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. dnf update -y --best Actual results: Last metadata expiration check performed 1:56:53 ago on Mon Feb 22 17:04:14 2016. Error: cannot install both sqlite-3.11.0-1.fc23.x86_64 and sqlite-3.10.2-1.fc23.x86_64 Expected results: successful update
I am not sure what dependencies prevent this upgrade. I checked the requires for both packages, and clearly there was a change in the method they were specified: dnf repoquery --requires sqlite-3.11.0-1.fc23.x86_64 Last metadata expiration check performed 0:00:00 ago on Mon Feb 22 19:02:19 2016. libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sqlite-libs = 3.11.0-1.fc23 dnf repoquery --requires sqlite-3.10.2-1.fc23.x86_64 Last metadata expiration check performed 0:00:19 ago on Mon Feb 22 19:02:19 2016. libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Maybe this is because of bug 1310441? Can you check if you have the i686 version of sqlite installed?
To me it looks like it: - sqlite.i686 would lock sqlite.x86_64 to the same version on multi-lib - both old and new versions can't be installed at the same time I'll just assume it's a duplicate of the mentioned bug, feel free to poke me if I'm wrong. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1310441 ***