I am trying to system-upgrade from f26 to rawhide, but I receive errors like the following: warning: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/NetworkManager-1.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID f5282ee4: NOKEY Curl error (37): Couldn't read a file:// file for file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 [Couldn't open file /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64] Possibly the same problem as bug 1364581. I have tried working around this for now with: ln -s /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-26-x86_64 /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 but this gives me: warning: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/NetworkManager-1.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID f5282ee4: NOKEY Importing GPG key 0xF5282EE4: Userid : "Fedora 27 (27) <fedora-27>" Fingerprint: 860E 19B0 AFA8 00A1 7518 81A6 F55E 7430 F528 2EE4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Is this ok [y/N]: y Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: Public key for NetworkManager-1.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm is not installedFailing package is: NetworkManager-1:1.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64 GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 At this point I got confused, since the fingerprints match, so not sure why it's complaining the import didn't help. I have seen the following entry on the DNF system upgrade talk page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:DNF_system_upgrade): Rawhide needs to include additional instruction You need to install the fedora-repos-rawhide before you start this process, and apparently. "file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64" ... apparently that file doesn't exist anywhere and you have to --nogpg --Taw (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC) so I am going to try --nogpg next, but I am wondering if there is a more correct solution to this. Apologies if NOTABUG. Thanks for your help.
So, IMHO the bug here is that we need to ship in fedora-repos a link from /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 to the actual key. Currently that is: /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-27-primary So, your link would have worked, but you linked to the f26 key, which is not correct. rawhide and branched are signed by different keys and are different versions. I'll go correct the wiki, as you should NOT EVER use nogpg. ;)
*** Bug 1469600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
using --releasever=27 on the command line will make everything work correctly. we do need to figure out a way to make things work without a ton of pain
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle. Changing version to '27'.
I don't understand how I got back to this bug. I experienced bug this bug when first tried to upgrade to rawhide (from F26) and fixed it making some symlinks, I think. Things were okay for a couple updates and then packages were broken involving Libre Office and libpopler for a long time. I finally got dnf to initiate an upgrade with allowerasing, but after download, it asked to install GPG key F5282EE4, which I allowed, and now GPG check fails for all packages. DNF said "Importing keys didn't help. Wrong keys?" just as in bug 1469600. In dnf.log I see: 2017-08-23T15:30:40Z CRITICAL Importing GPG key 0xF5282EE4: Userid : "Fedora 27 (27) <fedora-27>" Fingerprint: 860E 19B0 AFA8 00A1 7518 81A6 F55E 7430 F528 2EE4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-27-x86_64 ...<errors> Now, when I try to restart the upgrade, DNF says "Public key for <pkg> is not installed..." for all pkgs. In subsequent tries, it continues to prompt for key import and says it imports, successfully, the same F27 key each time, but it also says "didn't help." It also says this, which I don't understand: warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/<pkg> Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9db62fb1: NOKEY Isn't that the key ID i need?
(In reply to Paul DeStefano from comment #5) > I don't understand how I got back to this bug. I experienced bug this bug > when first tried to upgrade to rawhide (from F26) and fixed it making some > symlinks, I think. Things were okay for a couple updates and then packages > were broken involving Libre Office and libpopler for a long time. I finally > got dnf to initiate an upgrade with allowerasing, but after download, it > asked to install GPG key F5282EE4, which I allowed, and now GPG check fails > for all packages. DNF said "Importing keys didn't help. Wrong keys?" just > as in bug 1469600. In dnf.log I see: > > 2017-08-23T15:30:40Z CRITICAL Importing GPG key 0xF5282EE4: > Userid : "Fedora 27 (27) <fedora-27>" > Fingerprint: 860E 19B0 AFA8 00A1 7518 81A6 F55E 7430 F528 2EE4 > From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-27-x86_64 > ...<errors> > > Now, when I try to restart the upgrade, DNF says "Public key for <pkg> is > not installed..." for all pkgs. In subsequent tries, it continues to prompt > for key import and says it imports, successfully, the same F27 key each > time, but it also says "didn't help." It also says this, which I don't > understand: > > warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/<pkg> Header V3 > RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9db62fb1: NOKEY > > Isn't that the key ID i need? I also had this problem recently due to the rawhide version number changing. It is caused by not having the key for f28, with which new builds are signed. I fixed this by upgrading the packages fedora-release, fedora-repos, and fedora-repos-rawhide, with --nogpgcheck. There may have been another package, I'm not sure, I just looked through the list of packages dnf was going to upgrade and pulled out the ones that sounded like they might have the new key. Once these are installed you will have the f28 key in /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/ and you will be able to upgrade the rest of your packages.
> Isn't that the key ID i need? rawhide is F28 now so if you've not updated for a while you might have issues, there's a different key, if you want to stay on F27 I'd do "dnf --releasever=27 --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync"
Grr. I've been trying to upgrade every week for at least two months and it's been broken for other reasons the whole time. So, what if I don't want to stay with 27? Then what?
(In reply to Paul DeStefano from comment #8) > Grr. I've been trying to upgrade every week for at least two months and > it's been broken for other reasons the whole time. > > So, what if I don't want to stay with 27? Then what? My reply will allow you to stay with rawhide, which is the same as moving to f28. Otherwise you could dnf system-upgrade to f26?
Sure, I get that, but I'd like to know what Kevin was suggesting since he says not to do that. Peter's suggested command fails with the exact same error (import didn't help). I'm not sure why that was supposed to work as all pkg crypto is broken.
I was suggesting no one should use --nogpgcheck. I'm definitely not seeing "all pkg crypto is broken" here. So, you imported the f27 key and ran Peters distro sync command and it errors talking about the f28 key? What repos do you have enabled? 'dnf repolist' If you are going to f28 (rawhide currently) you can only have fedora-rawhide enabled and need the f28 key imported. If you are trying to go to f27, you need fedora, fedora-updates, fedora-updates-testing enabled and need the f27 key imported. Ditto for older releases. I suspect you only have the rawhide repo enabled?
Thanks Kevin. Yes, you are correct. rawhide only. I ran Peter's command and it imports, again, F27 key, but cannot verify any pkgs. I assume these are F28 signed from that previous error because dnf doesn't say which key it needs when it fails all the packages. This install was dnf upgrade from F26 to rawhide. I'm not trying to go to anywhere, I just want to stay with rawhide. I guess that isn't a thing, though? Or I don't know how to describe it to dnf, at least. So, do I want to install fedora-repos-28, enable 28 only, then distro-sync? If so, how do I install that package because it will not install now; I tried.
You want to install the f28 key and then re-run the distro-sync. rpm --import https://pagure.io/fedora-repos/raw/master/f/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-28-primary The real solution here is us updating all existing releases fedora-repos when we branch, so you could update your f26 (and get the f26 fedora repos with the f28 key and rawhide repo file) and then upgrade to f28.
Whee! I'm here yet again and still don't understand why. I see that F30 has branched and is the new rawhide. I update my "rawhide" to F30 with DNF system-upgrade --releasever=30, since upgrading to releasever "rawhide" seemed to cause such a disaster the first time. Now, DNF is totally confused and I cannot update any packages because DNF cannot verify any pkgs. repolist shows rawhide rawhide-modular dnf upgrade fedora-gpg-keys shows conflicts for that package and broken dependencies for generic-release dnf upgrade --best --allowerasing fedora-gpg-keys tries to reimport F29 key, says "didn't help", then fails GPG check. Also, on my other rawhide system, plain old dnf upgrade fails with the same behavior.
what does: rpm -q fedora-release fedora-repos generic-relase output? If something is preventing it from updating to the 30 versions, it would still be trying to use the 29 key.
Thanks again Kevin, you rock. it says: fedora-release-29-0.10.noarch fedora-reopos-29-0.7.noarch generic-release is not installed Hmm, sounds bad.
Right, so you are following f29, not rawhide. dnf --releasever=30 update fedora-release fedora-repos\* should update you to the 30 versions, then dnf update from there should ask you to import the f30 key and be back on track.
Hmm, that gives me a an error from Curl, "cannot open file:// file file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-30-fedora" and so it cannot verify those packages, either. I feel like the upgrade to F30 didn't actually complete. I'm going to try again.
Argh. Okay, lets try this again. My rawhide VM hasn't been updated in a couple weeks, so I know I haven't messed it up. (rpm -q fedora-release fedora-repos gives fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch). I go there and I try to do just a normal update: sudo -i dnf upgrade Last metadata expiration check: 2:44:29 ago on Sun 19 Aug 2018 06:04:03 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch and fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch conflicts with fedora-release provided by fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch Problem 2: package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch and fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch conflicts with fedora-release provided by fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch - package fedora-release-workstation-30-0.1.noarch requires fedora-release = 30-0.1, but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install the best update candidate for package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-release-workstation-29-0.7.noarch Problem 3: problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch and fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch Problem 4: problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch requires fedora-gpg-keys = 29-0.5, but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch and fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.5.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.5.noarch ... ... warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/freerdp-libs-2.0.0-42.20180405gita9ecd6a.fc29.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x429476B4: Userid : "Fedora 29 (29) <fedora-29>" Fingerprint: 5A03 B4DD 8254 ECA0 2FDA 1637 A20A A56B 4294 76B4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Is this ok [y/N]: y Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? Okay, that makes no sense whatsoever. But, I want to upgrade to F30 to stay on "rawhide", anyway, so I try this: sudo -i dnf --releasever=30 system-upgrade download Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running "dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: y Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 2.2 MB/s | 62 MB 00:28 RPM Fusion for Fedora Rawhide - Free 421 kB/s | 970 kB 00:02 RPM Fusion for Fedora Rawhide - Nonfree 131 kB/s | 215 kB 00:01 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Sun 19 Aug 2018 08:51:48 PM PDT. Error: Problem 1: problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository - fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository Problem 2: problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch requires fedora-gpg-keys = 29-0.5, but none of the providers can be installed - fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository Okay, also completely confusing. I'm on 29, so why can't any providers for system-release(29) not be found? Let's try your suggestion (which I don't understand, why would I update my fedora-release pkg before running system upgrade?): sudo -i dnf --releasever=30 update fedora-release fedora-repos\* [sudo] password for pmouse: Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 2.3 MB/s | 62 MB 00:27 RPM Fusion for Fedora Rawhide - Free 209 kB/s | 970 kB 00:04 RPM Fusion for Fedora Rawhide - Nonfree 99 kB/s | 215 kB 00:02 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Sun 19 Aug 2018 08:58:50 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. Problem 1: problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch and fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch conflicts with fedora-release provided by fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch Problem 2: problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-0.4.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - package generic-release-29-0.2.fc29.noarch requires fedora-repos(29), but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch and fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch ================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================ Skipping packages with conflicts: (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade): fedora-release noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 26 k fedora-repos noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 8.7 k generic-release noarch 29-0.2.fc29 rawhide 25 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================ Skip 3 Packages Nothing to do. Complete! So, do I just completely misunderstand how rawhide works? I'm so sorry Kevin; you've been really great, but I don't understand a single thing I'm seeing.
(In reply to Paul DeStefano from comment #18) > Hmm, that gives me a an error from Curl, "cannot open file:// file > file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-30-fedora" and so it cannot verify those > packages, either. > > I feel like the upgrade to F30 didn't actually complete. I'm going to try > again. In theory this would work: # dnf install /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64 --releasever=30 although I couldn't get it to install either. The fundamental problem seems to be at the moment that there has been no f29 compose at all, and the f30 compose seems a bit broken, so I suppose the best advice is to wait a while.
Paul: You have rpmfusion-free-release-29 and rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29 which require fedora-release-29. rpmfusion hasn't branched yet I don't think, so you will have to manually remove those two in order to update to get the fedora-release-30 package. Yeah, things are still in a bit of flux for sure. ;( Hopefully we will have composes back on track today for both 29 and rawhide.
Ah, yes, good catch. My mistake. I had removed those on my laptop, but forgot to when I started over on VM to show you. I'll fix that and try again on the VM in just a minute. But, on my laptop, on which I already ran dnf system-upgrade download & reboot, I see this: sudo -i dnf upgrade fedora-release fedora-repos generic-release [sudo] password for testuser2: Fedora - Modular Rawhide - Developmental packages for the nex 28 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora 43 kB/s | 13 kB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Mon 20 Aug 2018 03:19:40 PM PDT. Package generic-release available, but not installed. No match for argument: generic-release Dependencies resolved. ============================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================================== Upgrading: fedora-gpg-keys noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 97 k fedora-release noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 26 k fedora-repos noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 8.7 k fedora-repos-rawhide noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 7.9 k Transaction Summary ============================================================================================== Upgrade 4 Packages Total download size: 140 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: (1/4): fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 53 kB/s | 8.7 kB 00:00 (2/4): fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 137 kB/s | 26 kB 00:00 (3/4): fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 319 kB/s | 7.9 kB 00:00 (4/4): fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 488 kB/s | 97 kB 00:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 320 kB/s | 140 kB 00:00 warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora 1.1 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x429476B4: Userid : "Fedora 29 (29) <fedora-29>" Fingerprint: 5A03 B4DD 8254 ECA0 2FDA 1637 A20A A56B 4294 76B4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Is this ok [y/N]: y Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? Public key for fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: GPG check FAILED Just like before. But, I cannot figureout how to install the new gpg-key pkg so I can import the new key.
Okay, so, after removing the rpmfusion repo pkgs on the otherwise clean VM, here's what I get. sudo -i dnf upgrade fedora-repos fedora-release generic-release Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:11 ago on Mon 20 Aug 2018 08:22:30 PM PDT. Package generic-release available, but not installed. No match for argument: generic-release Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================ Upgrading: fedora-gpg-keys noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 97 k fedora-release noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 26 k fedora-release-workstation noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 19 k fedora-repos noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 8.7 k fedora-repos-rawhide noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 7.9 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================ Upgrade 5 Packages Total download size: 159 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: (1/5): fedora-release-workstation-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 70 kB/s | 19 kB 00:00 (2/5): fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 89 kB/s | 26 kB 00:00 (3/5): fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 88 kB/s | 8.7 kB 00:00 (4/5): fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 81 kB/s | 7.9 kB 00:00 (5/5): fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm 245 kB/s | 97 kB 00:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 158 kB/s | 159 kB 00:01 warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x429476B4: Userid : "Fedora 29 (29) <fedora-29>" Fingerprint: 5A03 B4DD 8254 ECA0 2FDA 1637 A20A A56B 4294 76B4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Is this ok [y/N]: y Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? Public key for fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-release-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-release-workstation-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-release-workstation-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Public key for fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch.rpm is not installed. Failing package is: fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch GPG Keys are configured as: file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: GPG check FAILED Which is exactly what happens when I just try a *regular* dnf upgrade. ??? sudo -i dnf upgrade Last metadata expiration check: 0:11:43 ago on Mon 20 Aug 2018 08:22:30 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ... Total 2.0 MB/s | 825 MB 06:46 warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/freerdp-libs-2.0.0-42.20180405gita9ecd6a.fc29.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x429476B4: Userid : "Fedora 29 (29) <fedora-29>" Fingerprint: 5A03 B4DD 8254 ECA0 2FDA 1637 A20A A56B 4294 76B4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Is this ok [y/N]: y Is this ok [y/N]: y Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? Now, that should work, right? I mean, dnf update shouldn't break just because F30 has branched. My VM is just a few weeks behind. I think that is exactly the experience I had with F28-F29, too. Why does DNF on old rawhide release need to verify packages signed by new rawhide release key? And, even if it did, they could just be in the fedora-gpg-keys pkg for all releases; there's nothing illegal about that, AFAIK. I don't see how to *ever* avoid this catch 22 problem, yet I cannot be the only person using rawhide this way. That's what I mean by, "I don't understand rawhide."
until/unless you have fedora-release-30 _INSTALLED_ your release is set by fedora-release-29, which means it looks for the wrong gpg key. you MUST use '--releasever=30' to get it to use the right key and that key must exist already. There should be a fedora-release-29 update today that has the f30 key in it, so 'dnf update' and get that, then 'dnf --releasever=30 update fedora-release fedora-repos' and you should be on rawhide. Note that a lot of this will be made simpiler when/if our proposal to make rawhide 'rawhide' instead of the number is implemented.
That all makes sense, I think. Except that the key isn't in fedora-release, right, it's in fedora-gpg-keys? dnf upgrade is still not able to find a new fedora-release, so I tracked one down on koji that I think you had built: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/fedora-release/29/0.12/noarch/fedora-release-29-0.12.noarch.rpm I downloaded it and tried to install it: sudo -i dnf upgrade $PWD/fedora-release-29-0.12.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:01 ago on Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:12:41 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. Problem: problem with installed package fedora-release-workstation-29-0.7.noarch - package fedora-release-workstation-29-0.7.noarch requires fedora-release = 29-0.7, but none of the providers can be installed - package fedora-release-workstation-30-0.4.noarch requires fedora-release = 30-0.4, but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both fedora-release-29-0.12.noarch and fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch - cannot install both fedora-release-29-0.12.noarch and fedora-release-30-0.4.noarch - cannot install the best update candidate for package fedora-release-29-0.7.noarch ================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================ Skipping packages with conflicts: (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade): fedora-release noarch 29-0.12 @commandline 28 k fedora-release noarch 30-0.4 rawhide 26 k Skipping packages with broken dependencies: fedora-release-workstation noarch 30-0.4 rawhide 20 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================ Skip 3 Packages Nothing to do. Complete! So, I'm not sure I fully understand this output. But, I'm guessing that I need to upgrade -workstation sub-package too. So, I downloaded the corresponding 29-0.12 version of that from koji, too. Seem reasonable? sudo -i dnf upgrade $PWD/fedora-release-29-0.12.noarch.rpm $PWD/fedora-release-workstation-29-0.12.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 0:03:23 ago on Wed 22 Aug 2018 11:03:39 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================ Upgrading: fedora-release noarch 29-0.12 @commandline 28 k fedora-release-workstation noarch 29-0.12 @commandline 21 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================ Upgrade 2 Packages ... Upgraded: fedora-release-29-0.12.noarch fedora-release-workstation-29-0.12.noarch Complete! Am I ready now? sudo -i dnf --refresh upgrade Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 23 kB/s | 14 kB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed 22 Aug 2018 11:08:52 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ... Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================ Install 26 Packages Upgrade 792 Packages Remove 3 Packages Total size: 1.0 G Total download size: 565 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: ... warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/freerdp-libs-2.0.0-44.rc3.fc30.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 773 kB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00 Importing GPG key 0x429476B4: Userid : "Fedora 29 (29) <fedora-29>" Fingerprint: 5A03 B4DD 8254 ECA0 2FDA 1637 A20A A56B 4294 76B4 From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-x86_64 Is this ok [y/N]: y Key imported successfully Import of key(s) didn't help, wrong key(s)? No, I'm not ready. I can't even update, much less system-upgrade to F30. (I mean, I'm behaving logically, right? I think I'm doing what you say to do. I feels like the twilight zone: I'm on an alien planet where Fedora looks like the Fedora I know well and everyone speaks English, but nothing I do is right.) Can you tell me how to fix this? BTW, I don't see this key cfc659b9 on keys.fedoraproject.org. Shouldn't it be there?
If you have fedora-release-29 installed and want to move to rawhide/f30, you MUST use dnf --releasever=30 upgrade to get the fedora-release-30 package(s). If you don't use --releasever=30 you will never be offered a upgrade to f30 packages. Not sure how to better explain it...
Ah, so, my confusion is that you previously mentioned that fedora-release-29 would be updated, and, I assumed that meant that the F30 key would be in there. Now, I know that's not the pkg that holds keys, so, that didn't make sense, but I didn't understand what else could be in that pkg that I needed. While I had tried the --releasever=30 option on all my commands and it never helped, I didn't always show that, too, so, that was just a side effect of trying to make the comments smaller. Finally, I don't understand the --releasever=30 option (for my VM, at least) since I'm not yet doing a system-upgrade. Why would I need F30 packages on F29? (I actually have seen cases where that is recommended, but without the keys I don't see how that would work, which is just what you said.) Only now do I think you might be saying that is required for people following rawhide. But, even that doesn't make sense since that is not how system-upgrade works for all other fedora releases, so...still not clear. Regardless --releasever=30 has no effect. So, I'm still confused. sudo -i dnf upgrade --releasever=30 fedora-release [sudo] password for pmouse: Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 23 kB/s | 12 kB 00:00 Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release 1.0 MB/s | 62 MB 01:01 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:54 ago on Thu 23 Aug 2018 07:34:10 AM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================ Upgrading: fedora-gpg-keys noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 97 k fedora-release noarch 30-0.4 rawhide 26 k fedora-release-workstation noarch 30-0.4 rawhide 20 k fedora-repos noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 8.7 k fedora-repos-rawhide noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 7.9 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================ Upgrade 5 Packages Total size: 160 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: [SKIPPED] fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] fedora-release-30-0.4.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] fedora-release-workstation-30-0.4.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] fedora-repos-30-0.1.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] fedora-repos-rawhide-30-0.1.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/fedora-gpg-keys-30-0.1.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Curl error (37): Couldn't read a file:// file for file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64 [Couldn't open file /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64] The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. I think this command has the right output, though, since it's trying to upgrade gpg-keys pkg, too. After all of this, I it is still most logical that that package is the one that is not working for me.
(In reply to Paul DeStefano from comment #27) > Ah, so, my confusion is that you previously mentioned that fedora-release-29 > would be updated, and, I assumed that meant that the F30 key would be in > there. Now, I know that's not the pkg that holds keys, so, that didn't make > sense, but I didn't understand what else could be in that pkg that I needed. The fedora-repos-27-4 and fedora-repos-28-5 have the Fedora 30 keys (well the fedora-gpg-keys subpackage of those) and they're both in updates-testing of their appropriate releases.
> Regardless --releasever=30 has no effect. So, I'm still confused. > > sudo -i dnf upgrade --releasever=30 fedora-release You want to do distro-sync not upgrade so: dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=install_weak_deps=False --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #29) > You want to do distro-sync not upgrade so: > > dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=install_weak_deps=False --setopt=deltarpm=false > distro-sync Why do I want distro-sync? $ sudo -i dnf --releasever=30 distro-sync --setopt=install_weak_deps=False --setopt=deltarpm=False distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:27 ago on Thu 23 Aug 2018 10:18:38 AM PDT. No package distro-sync installed. Error: No packages marked for distribution synchronization. Why not upgrade with --enablerepo=updates-testing in accordance with comment 28? (It didn't work, either, but...)
Oops, bad command. Let me try the right one...
$ sudo -i dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=install_weak_deps=False --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync Last metadata expiration check: 0:10:47 ago on Thu 23 Aug 2018 10:18:38 AM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ... fedora-gpg-keys noarch 30-0.1 rawhide 97 k ... Install 22 Packages Upgrade 814 Packages Remove 3 Packages Total size: 990 M Total download size: 990 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: ... Total 1.4 MB/s | 990 MB 11:43 warning: /var/cache/dnf/rawhide-2d95c80a1fa0a67d/packages/freerdp-libs-2.0.0-44.rc3.fc30.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID cfc659b9: NOKEY Curl error (37): Couldn't read a file:// file for file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64 [Couldn't open file /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64] The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Still not sure why I want distro-sync. But, still no joy.
> Still not sure why I want distro-sync. But, still no joy. To quote the manual "As necessary upgrades, downgrades or keeps selected installed packages to match the latest version available from any enabled repository. If no package is given, all installed packages are considered." And if you're going from 26 to 30 you're going to need to manually import the key first, F-26 was EOL before the 30 key was made. It can't import the key from the F-30 repo because it would need to install the package first to get the key, needs the key to install the package, for F-27+ it gets it from the installed system.
Thanks Peter, Sorry, this bug is getting pretty long with my posts, but that's not my exact situation. My system is F29 Rawhide...or formerly rawhide, whatever...and I'm trying to stay on rawhide by "upgrading" to F30. This is the same situation as presented in the bug, just different versions. The bug was filed on F26, but the core problem exited before that and still exists, today. As he said, Kevin has proposed a solution. But, until then, I'm looking for help, here. I just figured another bug for the same core issue would get closed as a duplicate of this one. Now, regarding your suggestion to manually import the key: yes! I would love to do that and have tried multiple different methods to find the key, but I cannot find it anywhere. It's not in the fedora-gpg-keys-29 package which I've tried to update like 10 times, it's not on fedora's PGP key server, and its not even on the Fedora web-page titled "Package Signing Keys". In the past, I have been able to find the keys for myself; this isn't the first time I've needed them. Do you know where there is a public copy? $ pwd /etc/pki/rpm-gpg $ ls *fedora-29-primary *fedora-3* ls: cannot access '*fedora-3*': No such file or directory RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-primary $ rpm --query fedora-gpg-keys fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.5.noarch
> Now, regarding your suggestion to manually import the key: yes! I would > love to do that and have tried multiple different methods to find the key, What version of fedora-repos do you have installed?
> $ rpm --query fedora-gpg-keys > fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.5.noarch The Fedora 30 key was added in 29-0.8 so "dnf upgrade --refresh fedora\*" then: rpm --import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-29-primary dnf config-manager --set-disabled updates updates-testing dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync Should get you there.
There is race conditions when we bump rawhide with no good way to make everything just smoothly work. Likely someone needs to write up some documentation on how to manually go through each of the different paths. every path at branching requires some manual steps. the only way that we could get away with not doing a manual step to stay on rawhide would be to have a rawhide only key and resign all packages at branching with a release specific key or to go to a model where all releases get signed with one key and we never change it.
Thanks again, Peter. > > Now, regarding your suggestion to manually import the key: yes! I would > > love to do that and have tried multiple different methods to find the key, > > What version of fedora-repos do you have installed? $ sudo -i dnf list installed fedora-release* Installed Packages fedora-release.noarch 29-0.12 @@commandline fedora-release-workstation.noarch 29-0.12 @@commandline(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #35) Okay, so that part about new F29 package makes sense to me! You and Kevin both said the new key was in an updated F29 package with the key. But, I just haven't been able to find it. When I dnf upgrade I get F30 packages, not F29. Even using --releasever=29 doesn't help, I still get F30 packages. I think this is the core issue Kevin and Dennis are talking about. To make things worse, I cannot find *any* gpg-keys or fedora-release pkgs on koji/packages, which is really weird. Also, I see gpg-keys pkgs for F30 and F28 on rpmfind.net, but *none* for F29. Why can't I get either the public key or new packages. All avenues seem closed.
> > What version of fedora-repos do you have installed? > > $ sudo -i dnf list installed fedora-release* I asked for fedora-repos not release ;-) > Okay, so that part about new F29 package makes sense to me! You and Kevin > both said the new key was in an updated F29 package with the key. But, I > just haven't been able to find it. When I dnf upgrade I get F30 packages, > not F29. Even using --releasever=29 doesn't help, I still get F30 packages. > I think this is the core issue Kevin and Dennis are talking about. I can't work out if you want to go to F-29 or F-30. If you want to go to F-29 try this: dnf config-manager --set-enabled fedora updates updates-testing dnf config-manager --set-diabled rawhide dnf --releasever=29 --setopt=install_weak_deps=False --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync > To make things worse, I cannot find *any* gpg-keys or fedora-release pkgs on > koji/packages, which is really weird. Also, I see gpg-keys pkgs for F30 and > F28 on rpmfind.net, but *none* for F29. Why can't I get either the public > key or new packages. All avenues seem closed. It's a subpackage of fedora-repos [1], you can work that out by using "rpm -qi fedora-gpg-keys" and it will list the source package in the output: rpm -qi fedora-gpg-keys Name : fedora-gpg-keys Version : 29 Release : 0.9 Architecture: noarch Install Date: Sun 26 Aug 2018 09:58:37 BST Group : Unspecified Size : 98874 License : MIT Signature : RSA/SHA256, Thu 23 Aug 2018 15:50:30 BST, Key ID a20aa56b429476b4 Source RPM : fedora-repos-29-0.9.src.rpm Build Date : Thu 23 Aug 2018 15:50:00 BST Build Host : buildvm-14.phx2.fedoraproject.org Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager : Fedora Project Vendor : Fedora Project URL : https://fedoraproject.org/ Bug URL : https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/fedora-repos Summary : Fedora RPM keys Description : This package provides the RPM signature keys. [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=18771
in order to get a fedora-repos that is signed with the f29 key and has the f30 key in it you would have to run dnf --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora --releasever=29 update fedora* after that if you wanted to stay on fedora 29 you would yum update, if you wanted to stay on rawhide you would need to do dnf --enablerepo=rawhide --releasever=30 distro-sync
Thanks Peter. $ rpm --query fedora-repos fedora-repos-29-0.5.noarch Sorry, I thought I was clear; I want F30 since I think that is the same as rawhide. I originally installed rawhide (when it was F27) using system-upgrade releasever='rawhide'. When F28 came out, I noticed this problem trying to stay on rawhide. Kevin set me strait, I thought, and when F29 came around I did system-ugprade to releasever='29', which I figured would fix everything. I know which package has the keys, I've been trying to get it for F29; but, just couldn't get fedora to fetch it, or find it manually, or find the key itself. Still don't have any answers to the latter two problems. I now realize that system-upgrade may not be the way to stay on rawhide. That's why I was confused by distro-sync; I thought I was upgrading my system, but you and Peter are suggesting I use distro-sync, which seems like breaking the rules, but I can see how that makes sense for rawhide. If that is the normal rawhide way, I'd never see it mentioned. I don't see the connection in the man page description. But, Dennis says I *can* fetch the right package using special options and...they turn up the correct packages during dep resolve. So let's see...Yes! It works! And the next step, distro-sync from rawhide repo using F30...yes, it imported the correct key. Phew! I think we got it. Thank you. Okay! I think I follow that. So, it's not really a system upgrade to stay on rawhide. You just swap repos and distro-sync. See, I never heard that. I was just treating it like a normal system upgrade. But, you do have to use that strange --disablerepo=* option to get the "old" key pkg or else DNF tries to install from the next verion's repo. Is see how that makes DNF do the thing I awnt, but I clearly couldn't think of it myself. Many thanks, all!
> Sorry, I thought I was clear; I want F30 since I think that is the same as > rawhide. Correct, rawhide is the leading tip of development. > I originally installed rawhide (when it was F27) using system-upgrade > releasever='rawhide'. When F28 came out, I noticed this problem trying to > stay on rawhide. Kevin set me strait, I thought, and when F29 came around I > did system-ugprade to releasever='29', which I figured would fix everything. If you want 30 you need to put 30 for the releasever not 29. But first you need to do just a plain dnf upgrade to get the latest version of things on what ever stream you're on. distro-sync is very similar to system-upgrade, it achieves mostly the same things but in a completely online fashion rather than rebooting. > I know which package has the keys, I've been trying to get it for F29; but, > just couldn't get fedora to fetch it, or find it manually, or find the key > itself. Still don't have any answers to the latter two problems. You do have all the answers. The answers are all in the details above. > I now realize that system-upgrade may not be the way to stay on rawhide. > That's why I was confused by distro-sync; I thought I was upgrading my > system, but you and Peter are suggesting I use distro-sync, which seems like > breaking the rules, but I can see how that makes sense for rawhide. If that > is the normal rawhide way, I'd never see it mentioned. I don't see the > connection in the man page description. Don't think of it as breaking the rules, it's a more interactive way to achieve the same things. > But, Dennis says I *can* fetch the right package using special options > and...they turn up the correct packages during dep resolve. So let's > see...Yes! It works! > > And the next step, distro-sync from rawhide repo using F30...yes, it > imported the correct key. Phew! I think we got it. Thank you. Yes, you need to basically apply the updates for the stream that you are on which gives you all the latest keys, then you switch streams. Basically it's quite straight forward. What I suggest you do next cycle is wait for a week or so to let everything settle down before executing exactly what dennis has above obviously substituting the new version numbers. > Okay! I think I follow that. So, it's not really a system upgrade to stay > on rawhide. You just swap repos and distro-sync. See, I never heard that. It is a system upgrade, just a different way. Basically online not offline.
We keep talking past each other on a lot of issues. But, ultimately, I got what I needed. Thank you, all. I *don't* think this bug is close, however, and certainly not NOTABUG. The core issue is an acknowledged bug by Kevin and he just said the proposed fix has not been adopted by Fedora.
Hey Peter, I thought we were getting along, but perhaps not. What's going on?
(In reply to Paul DeStefano from comment #44) > Hey Peter, I thought we were getting along, but perhaps not. What's going > on? you set a need info with no details? Yes, Kevin mentioned a problem. It's a process problem that has nothing to do with this particular issue. Most of the stuff covered above isn't an actual bug. I'm not sure if the needinfo you set is to do with the point you raised 4 days earlier or something else. So in that context there's no problem, but there's also no bug in this particular package. It might be that the documentation should be improved, or user education and associated docs for transitioning to rawhide on branch. But that's unrelated to this particular issue. So ultimately I'm not sure what you meant by a random needinfo without any associated information so I cleared it because in that context it's pointless.
you closed a bug with no details? ;-) Interesting, I've never heard of such a rule about needifnos. I thought it quite obvious that it was related my immediately previous comment. I'll try not to do that in the future. Kevin's comments on this bug suggest the underlying root cause is real, unresolved, and that it is being worked on. He left it open at that time, on purpose. So, I *assumed*, it was to track the issue, since he mentioned that "process change" idea in this bug. If that's wrong, okay, but that's how I had been thinking of this bug. Hence my shock when it was closed. I don't understand why you say, the "process problem that has nothing to do with this particular issue." I think it makes sense that this bug would remain open until the root cause is resolved. But, if you think otherwise, I guess I cannot stop you. I just don't find your argument for closing this bug convincing. Are you saying that the workaround you and Dennis walked me through is actually the official upgrade method for rawhide and that I shouldn't have used system-upgrade? Fine, but you said it was just an alternative method. And why didn't anyone else mention it, before? I remember when yum could do that for system upgrades. But, then dnf got the system-upgrade sub-command and the old way was deprecated. Right? Am I mis-remembering it? If Fedora is going to fix the root cause, then I don't care too much what happens to the bug. But, it sounds more like WONTFIX, to me. Kevin proposed a real solution; but now you say maybe some documentation changes. That's very different. So, that is my concern. What is going to happen? Is Fedora going to fix it so that the "normal" method of using DNF with 'upgrade' or 'system-upgrade' will not break when rawhide forks or not?
I was talking about a proposed change we are working on that would help with some of the issues you hit in this bug. It's: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5UVGSBRLX352A4S2CBZ2CGBXPAGQTYKB/ Once we land that change (and there is more work to do before we can): * fedora-release-rawhide goes away. Everyone just has fedora and fedora-updates repos normally enabled. A good deal of your difficulty was that you had just the rawhide repo enabled. * Because the rawhide fedora-release defines 'rawhide' as your version you will stay on rawhide forever once you upgrade to the rawhide fedora-release unless you take specific steps to follow branching. Unlike today where you follow the branch and that was another source of issues you hit. In any case, IMHO, this bug can be closed because you got to where you needed to go and the change I am talking about is tracked in other places.
Sweet, awesome. Thank you. Sorry to be pest about it. You're handling it. That's all I needed to hear.