Created attachment 1161561 [details] console screenshot Description of problem: A package is missing when trying to #dnf groupinstall 'Basic Desktop' How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1.Install Fedora 25 rawhide from Fedora-Everything-netinst-x86_64-Rawhide-20160520.n.0,iso - Minimal Install 2.#dnf -y update 3.#dnf groupinstall 'Basic Desktop' Actual results: No package xorg-x11-drv-freedreno available. Error: Unable to find a mandatory group package. Expected results: Install 'Basic Desktop' group successfully Additional info: When trying to groupinstall 'Mate Desktop' or 'Xfce Desktop' or 'Basic Desktop' or 'Fedora Workstation', I also get several other packages missing xorg-x11-drv-modesetting xorg-x11-drv-mga xorg-x11-drv-armsoc xorg-x11-drv-omap
jfwiw, these days I think -modesetting ddx (which uses glamor/gl to accel 2d) is probably preferred to using -freedreno ddx.
I expect thoses are deprecated and should be removed from the comps.xml: xorg-x11-drv-modesetting xorg-x11-drv-mga The others are specific for ARM architecture, as you are on x86_64 theses errors should be turned as Warnings instead. Care to re-assign to dnf ?
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #2) > I expect thoses are deprecated and should be removed from the comps.xml: > xorg-x11-drv-modesetting > xorg-x11-drv-mga > > The others are specific for ARM architecture, as you are on x86_64 theses > errors should be turned as Warnings instead. Care to re-assign to dnf ? Hello Nicolas Thanks! I've switched the component to dnf
I too found this bug. I think this is related to bug 1337731. I have also reported pull-request to update comps for xorg-x11-drv-modesetting. See https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/13 Please note xorg-x11-drv-mga package removal is already committed -> https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/c/c2d7d6e2d3339ee2251b004965ea99fffaaebf27
*** Bug 1340059 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
See linked bug #1340059 , seems to affect (some?) f23 users too.
This looks like another aspect of/the same issue at the proposed f24 blocking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337731 ? (ie, behavior change in dnf 1.1.9)
Also reported PR for f22 and f23 comps, see https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/15
See comment #7 , yep appears to be at least part of it , adding that as a dependency for tracking purposes.
The same error occurs during a groupinstall of Haskell - see below; the problem has appeared for F23 x86_64 in the last couple of weeks, since I installed the Haskell group on my desktop (same F23, repos, kernel release, etc) with no problems. Mike --- [tommo@aspire ~]$ dnf groupinfo Haskell Fedora 23 - x86_64 - Updates 1.3 MB/s | 22 MB 00:17 Adobe Systems Incorporated 12 kB/s | 1.8 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 23 - Free - Test Updates 905 kB/s | 333 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 23 - Nonfree - Test Updat 432 kB/s | 104 kB 00:00 Group: Haskell Description: Support for developing programs in the Haskell programming language. Mandatory Packages: cabal-dev cabal-rpm darcs ghc ghc-rpm-macros haskell-platform hlint hscolour Optional Packages: leksah Conditional Packages: emacs-haskell-mode [tommo@aspire ~]$ sudo dnf groupinstall Haskell [sudo] password for tommo: Last metadata expiration check: 1:17:34 ago on Sat May 28 08:26:46 2016. No package cabal-dev available. Error: Unable to find a mandatory group package.
Immediate workaround for this until the missing dependency issues are fixed is to use `dnf --setopt=strict=false group install <group>` This worked for my case, which was kde-desktop-environment.
*** Bug 1342889 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
We reverted patch about strict groups, so this bug has been fixed. But let's keep it open to track progress about proper handling such situations.
What specifically still needs to be tracked here? This is assigned to comps, but if it's a general policy thing, that should probably go to an FPC ticket.
(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #14) > What specifically still needs to be tracked here? This is assigned to comps, > but if it's a general policy thing, that should probably go to an FPC ticket. Well, in DNF 2.0 packages which are not found in repo, but present in comps will raise error. If we are going to stick with comps, we should consider adding new tag about architecture. If we are going proper way - replacing comps with normal RPM packages, then we need slowly migrate current comps into such packages.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #15) > (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #14) > > What specifically still needs to be tracked here? This is assigned to comps, > > but if it's a general policy thing, that should probably go to an FPC ticket. > Well, in DNF 2.0 packages which are not found in repo, but present in comps > will raise error. > > If we are going to stick with comps, we should consider adding new tag about > architecture. If we are going proper way - replacing comps with normal RPM > packages, then we need slowly migrate current comps into such packages. Could you please open a new bug with that information as the primary description? I think continuing in this bug will be confusing. Just mark the new one as depending on this one.
Actually, could you perhaps open a discussion on say the devel list about this? bugs are horrible for discussing design and such. Once we have a plan, then we can file bugs to do those things, but we need a plan first.
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #17) > Actually, could you perhaps open a discussion on say the devel list about > this? will do.