Hide Forgot
Description of problem: When attempting to remove a package that is a dependency of a protected package, the error returned does not make it obvious the reason it is blocked is because it would result in the removal of a protected package. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.0.0-1.mga6 (= 2.0.0-1.fc26) How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Run sudo dnf remove gnupg2 Actual results: Error: package python3-gpgme-0.3-9.mga6.x86_64 requires libgpgme.so.11()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package python3-dnf-2.0.0-1.mga6.noarch requires python3-gpgme, but none of the providers can be installed - package lib64gpgme11-1.8.0-8.mga6.x86_64 requires gnupg2 >= 1.9.6, but none of the providers can be installed - package dnf-2.0.0-1.mga6.noarch requires python3-dnf = 2.0.0-1.mga6, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - problem with installed package dnf-2.0.0-1.mga6.noarch Expected results: Some detailed error showing the dependency chain resulting in showing that it would cause the removal of dnf, which is not allowed as it is a protected package. Additional info: This error should be just as reproducible in Fedora Rawhide, as gnupg2 is an indirect dependency of dnf, and dnf declares itself protected by default.
Thanks for the report. It could be improved by extending set of protected packages recursively by it's dependencies before checking the set for removals.
Another aspect of it would be to make it so that the error statement doesn't look like it's trying to install something. Initially I was confused by the error because it looked like an install dependency error (even though I was attempting to remove a package). The problem statements printed should be in the correct context (that is, showing the broken reverse dependency chain from the proposed removal action). So I would say this and Honza's suggestion in Comment 1 would essentially solve the problem.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle. Changing version to '26'.
I created pull request (https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/295) that should improve the behavior. Unfortunately it can report only one protected package in transaction. I do not know what was supposed solution, but my solution was not an easy fix. Have a fun with testing.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. 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 '26'. 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 26 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.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 29 development cycle. Changing version to '29'.
Problem fixed in libdnf-0.10.0