Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/caja/c/d482b74182257b86b07dd23cc66e2eddc3747298 removed the mate-file-manager* virtual provides and was pushed to the f25 branch. Since then, we have: - caja 1.16.x in the os repository WITH the provides - caja 1.18.x in the updates repository WITHOUT the provides Any software depending upon the virtual mate-file-manager* provides will likely fail, since they will pull in caja 1.16.x. If any other package pulls in caja 1.18.x via dependencies, we get a nice set of conflicts. Please re-add the virtual provides to the updates-repo package.
This problem also affects fc26: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/caja/c/704d162af25e4011be565078a97da1b77ca28ae4
Can you please provide an dnf log. The provides was added in f20 for renaming mate-filemanager to caja, for updating mate-file-manager package with caja. After 5 releases it should be save to remove the provides, but maybe i did that to early. And which 1.16. x version you want to update? Because other people didn't run in this problem with updating MATE-1.16 to 1.18 in f25.
Created attachment 1311021 [details] mock build log with package build-depending upon mate-file-manager-devel. It's fine to rename the package and the virtual packages certainly help, but please don't change that for already released versions. That change is totally fine in rawhide - and there's nothing wrong with only having caja-* in FC27+. Will attach a yum log (dnf is impossible to test for me currently, since I build packages on a Debian machine via mock and dnf hasn't been backported yet.) The problem is certainly aggravated by wrong build dependencies: my package is still depending upon mate-file-manager-devel. I should change that to caja-devel.
Hmmm, I will try to reproduce this with updating a fresh f25 VM installed from MATE-Compiz spin with caja-1.16 to current 1.18 version. But using mate-file-manger-devel as build requires is wrong. Please take a look at fedora spec files for correct build requires. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/caja/tree
You won't be able to reproduce this problem with a normal upgrade. The issue is triggered by my package (x2gomatebindings) build-depending upon mate-file-manager-devel. Doing something like: - install base FC25 VM (with updates repo enabled, which is the default anyway) - install MATE - explicitly try to install mate-file-manager-devel should trigger that problem as well, though. I agree that I should switch to build-depending on caja-devel instead of mate-file-manager-devel. Will do that. Still, building with the legacy mate-file-manager-devel build dependency on FC25 and FC26 worked before the new caja-devel version reached the updates repo.
I see only x2goserver-fmbindings in repo. I will try to reproduce the issue if this package is installed.
It's an upstream package not part of Fedora IIRC. :) Orion has only ported the most common components, *bindings aren't AFAIK. Build dependency fixed upstream: https://code.x2go.org/gitweb?p=x2gomatebindings.git;a=commitdiff;h=700eec0b511210c973d8cc6023dae16392c7a177;hp=3802d40e5749ba9b7fd705aa093ceab467211972 With that, the package should build fine in an FC25 and FC26 environment again. It doesn't make the bug report obsolete, though, since any other software build-depending upon mate-file-manager-devel can run into this problem.
But which package use wrong build requires in fedora repos? I don't see any. [root@f25-test rave]# dnf repoquery --whatrequires caja Letzte Prüfung auf abgelaufene Metadaten: vor 0:24:33 am Wed Aug 9 09:29:50 2017. atril-caja-0:1.16.0-1.fc25.x86_64 atril-caja-0:1.18.0-1.fc25.x86_64 atril-thumbnailer-0:1.16.0-1.fc25.x86_64 atril-thumbnailer-0:1.18.0-1.fc25.x86_64 caja-beesu-manager-0:1.8-27.fc24.noarch nextcloud-client-caja-0:2.3.2-1.fc25.x86_64 owncloud-client-caja-0:2.3.2-1.fc25.x86_64 rabbitvcs-caja-0:0.16.1-0.5.20160108gite8214e6.fc25.noarch [root@f25-test rave]# dnf repoquery --whatrequires mate-file-manager Letzte Prüfung auf abgelaufene Metadaten: vor 0:24:45 am Wed Aug 9 09:29:50 2017. [root@f25-test rave]# In MATE upstream we renamed the package 3 years ago, enough time for all **third-party packages** to change their build requires.
As expected in f25 VM: [root@f25-test rave]# dnf update Last metadata expiration check: 0:41:44 ago on Wed Aug 9 09:29:50 2017. Dependencies resolved. <cut> xorg-x11-server-Xorg x86_64 1.19.3-1.fc25 updates 1.5 M xorg-x11-server-common x86_64 1.19.3-1.fc25 updates 48 k xorg-x11-xinit x86_64 1.3.4-13.fc25 updates 55 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 21 Packages Upgrade 712 Packages Total download size: 892 M Is this ok [y/N]:
I'm late to the party, yep. Definitely my fault. It's also relieving to know that no package within FC25 seems to actually be build-depending upon mate-file-manager-devel. But with all that acknowledged, isn't it a regression that mate-file-manager-(devel) could be selected before the caja upgrade in the updates repo and now can't? It's certainly nothing high-priority. ---- <snip> As expected in f25 VM: </snip> This does have MATE (including caja) installed, right? Yeah, that'll perfectly work for upgrades. If you excute "dnf install mate-file-manager", that should fail with an error now.
Well, it's a theoretical issue, but those outputs are worse :-) [root@f25-test rave]# dnf install mate-file-manager Last metadata expiration check: 1:05:55 ago on Wed Aug 9 09:29:50 2017. Error: cannot install both caja-1.16.1-1.fc25.x86_64 and caja-1.18.3-3.fc25.x86_64 (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages) For f26 it becomes funny :-) [root@f26 rave]# dnf -v install mate-file-manager <cut> Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:49 ago on Wed 09 Aug 2017 10:47:03 AM CEST. --> Starting dependency resolution ---> Package caja.x86_64 1.18.3-1.fc26 will be a downgrade ---> Package caja-extensions.x86_64 1.18.3-1.fc26 will be a downgrade ---> Package caja-schemas.x86_64 1.18.3-1.fc26 will be a downgrade --> Finished dependency resolution Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Downgrading: caja x86_64 1.18.3-1.fc26 fedora 1.4 M caja-extensions x86_64 1.18.3-1.fc26 fedora 36 k caja-schemas x86_64 1.18.3-1.fc26 fedora 2.1 M Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Downgrade 3 Packages Total download size: 3.5 M Is this ok [y/N]: dnf install >> dnf downgrade Ok, i will add the virtual provides again with next needed build.
(In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #11) > Ok, i will add the virtual provides again with next needed build. The build is needed just to resolve this issue, since the upgrade path for a (virtual) package within the same Fedora release is broken, now.
caja-1.18.4-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ebe2c063ab
caja-1.18.4-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-155e945695
caja-1.18.4-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ebe2c063ab
caja-1.18.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-155e945695
caja-1.18.4-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
caja-1.18.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.