Description of problem: Error or warning message about unsatified dependencies missing when trying to update set of packages specified on command line. Possible functional or security consequences. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): [vopicka@czlx-vopicka tmp]$ rpm -q dnf dnf-1.1.10-5.fc25.noarch [vopicka@czlx-vopicka tmp]$ How reproducible: Always with repo in such a state that dependencies cannot be resolved. Steps to Reproduce: 1. I am trying to update my almost up-to-date fedora 25. Skipped packages with broken dependencies are correctly reported: [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# dnf update Last metadata expiration check: 1:07:59 ago on Mon Jan 30 11:31:12 2017. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Skipping packages with broken dependencies: mesa-libEGL x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 103 k mesa-libEGL-devel x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 38 k mesa-libGL x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 164 k mesa-libGL-devel x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 161 k mesa-libGLES x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 21 k mesa-libglapi x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 49 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Skip 6 Packages Nothing to do. Complete! [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# 2. Now I am trying to update packages reported in step 1. No packages with broken dependencies are reported this time, only "Nothing to do": [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# dnf update mesa-libEGL mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLES mesa-libglapi Last metadata expiration check: 1:11:45 ago on Mon Jan 30 11:31:12 2017. Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete! [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# 3. (Here you can try again "dnf update" as in step 1 to verify that their broken dependencies still exist.) [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# dnf update Last metadata expiration check: 1:13:30 ago on Mon Jan 30 11:31:12 2017. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Skipping packages with broken dependencies: mesa-libEGL x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 103 k mesa-libEGL-devel x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 38 k mesa-libGL x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 164 k mesa-libGL-devel x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 161 k mesa-libGLES x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 21 k mesa-libglapi x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 49 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Skip 6 Packages Nothing to do. Complete! [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# Actual results: No packeges with broken dependencies reported in step 2. Expected results: Packages with broken dependencies should be reported in step 2. Additional info: [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# uname -a Linux czlx-vopicka.ad.ifortuna.cz 4.9.5-200.fc25.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Jan 20 12:24:16 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# I am considering this to be serious problem because of it may lead to packages with broken dependencies being SILENTLY NOT UPDATED, even when they are in repo. and should be reported as packages with broken dependencies.i This may have functional or security consequences - you are not warned that there is a problem with these packages and packages are just silently ignored. Plase note that my idea in step 2 was to add --enablerepo=fedora-testing in the next run to get packages missing in the fedora repo from fedora-updates. This is also the reason for having packages specified on command line, e.g. to get only minimum set of required packages from fedora-testing. [root@czlx-vopicka ~]# dnf update --enablerepo=updates-testing mesa-libEGL mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLES mesa-libglapi Fedora 25 - x86_64 - Test Updates 10 MB/s | 6.1 MB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:02 ago on Mon Jan 30 12:50:45 2017. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: libglvnd x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 88 k libglvnd-core-devel x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 19 k libglvnd-devel x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 11 k libglvnd-egl x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 42 k libglvnd-gles x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 30 k libglvnd-glx x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 124 k libglvnd-opengl x86_64 1:0.2.999-7.gitdc16f8c.fc25 updates-testing 43 k Upgrading: mesa-libEGL x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 103 k mesa-libEGL-devel x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 38 k mesa-libGL x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 164 k mesa-libGL-devel x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 161 k mesa-libGLES x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 21 k mesa-libglapi x86_64 13.0.3-4.fc25 updates 49 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 7 Packages Upgrade 6 Packages Total download size: 894 k Is this ok [y/N]:
Usual users should not notice problems with dependencies, only developers or advanced users. Use --best if you want to see error.
Hello. I would like to point out the following: 1) The missing message is certainly ERROR message and in no way anything like notice or something similar. 2) Ending with packages not updated w/o any error message in some cases can certainly have functional or evwn worse security impact on the system. 3) In my opinion, the current dnf behavior is exact opposite of what you are writing. "Usual user", if using dnf from comamnd line at all, will certainly use just "dnf update", while the "advanced user" od "developer" will possibly use "dnf update package_name ..." But "usual user's" command gives proper error message and the "advanced user's" does not display error message". So the error message is not hiden for usual users, but instead for advanced users and developers. 4) Oldschool yum behaves correctly in this case. [root@localhost ~]# yum-deprecated update --skip-broken mesa-libEGL mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLES mesa-libOSMesa mesa-libglapi ### Lots of messages from yum dependency solving removed here. But finally: Packages skipped because of dependency problems: libglvnd-0.2.999-6.git28867bb.fc25.i686 from fedora libglvnd-devel-0.2.999-6.git28867bb.fc25.i686 from fedora mesa-libEGL-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates mesa-libEGL-devel-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates mesa-libGL-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates mesa-libGL-devel-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates mesa-libGLES-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates mesa-libOSMesa-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates mesa-libglapi-13.0.3-4.fc25.i686 from updates [root@localhost ~]# 5) The mesaages we are talking about are significant ERROR messages, so they should not be hidden in any case. Best regards, Ed
Users do not need to report such bugs (that's why `best` is set to false by default). It's job of developers to prevent this. and even it happened it should not break other system updates.