Bug 1498846 - 26->27 upgrade package ceph-libs-compat-1:10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64 requires libcephfs1 = 1:10.2.7-2.fc26, but none of the providers can be installed
Summary: 26->27 upgrade package ceph-libs-compat-1:10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64 requires libce...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: ceph
Version: 27
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Boris Ranto
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-10-05 12:08 UTC by Dr. David Alan Gilbert
Modified: 2018-01-03 10:53 UTC (History)
16 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-03 10:53:35 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dr. David Alan Gilbert 2017-10-05 12:08:43 UTC
Description of problem:
doing a dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=27 on my f26 desktop, I see:
 Problem 1: package ceph-libs-compat-1:10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64 requires libcephfs1 = 1:10.2.7-2.fc26, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libcephfs1-1:10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package ceph-libs-compat-1:10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
[dg@major ~]$ rpm -qa | grep -i ceph
python-cephfs-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
ceph-common-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
ceph-libs-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
python-ceph-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
libcephfs1-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=27
2.
3.

Actual results:
Failure see error above

Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 aolmov89 2017-11-15 23:45:07 UTC
Did you solve it? I have the same issue

Comment 2 barsnick 2017-11-25 17:19:56 UTC
I have the same issue.

I figured out that the named package and the one which requires it are no longer required:

[barsnick@paradise ~]$ rpm -q --whatrequires libcephfs1
ceph-libs-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
[barsnick@paradise ~]$ rpm -q --whatrequires ceph-libs-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
no package requires ceph-libs-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
[barsnick@paradise ~]$ rpm -q --provides ceph-libs-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64
ceph-libs
ceph-libs-compat = 1:10.2.7-2.fc26
ceph-libs-compat(x86-64) = 1:10.2.7-2.fc26
[barsnick@paradise ~]$ rpm -q --whatrequires ceph-libs
no package requires ceph-libs
[barsnick@paradise ~]$ rpm -q --whatrequires ceph-libs-compat
no package requires ceph-libs-compat

So I just removed the two:

[barsnick@paradise ~]$ sudo dnf remove ceph-libs-compat-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64 libcephfs1-10.2.7-2.fc26.x86_64

I'm sure there's a clean way to purge unused former dependencies, but this worked for me in this particular case.

Comment 3 barsnick 2017-11-25 17:23:55 UTC
The actual issue is that ceph-libs-compat should be obsoleted. This change was made in ceph-12.2.1-2:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ceph.git/commit/?id=a262d185e85083f4a7428135c3f8e4e8ec212c4c

but this change hasn't made it to the F27 repo. Actually, it hasn't even made it to F27-testing, as it hasn't even triggered a build in F27 (and failed to build in F28?):

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/libcephfs1/builds

Maintainer, to the rescue!

Comment 4 Boris Ranto 2017-12-07 19:34:05 UTC
Oh, yeah, I noticed that we forgot to obsolete the ceph-libs-compat package when removing it. Unfortunately, rawhide builds were broken at that time because of some dependencies and this skipped off my radar in the meantime.

The current builds look much better although there seems to be an issue on arm with double definition which will likely still need fixing before we can push this to f27. :-/

Comment 5 Boris Ranto 2017-12-11 16:35:08 UTC
An updated package with the fix was pushed to the testing repo, can you test the package please?

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-97b730736f

Comment 6 Dr. David Alan Gilbert 2017-12-11 16:37:42 UTC
I long ago removed the broken package manually, so I can't easily test.

Comment 7 Boris Ranto 2018-01-03 10:53:35 UTC
The package is already in stable, feel free to re-open if you still can see this occurring.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.