Description of problem: Fresh install today of Fedora 29/KDE Spin; immediately ran software update, and all's well. Then installed LibreOffice which includes java-openjdk. Subsequent attempt to run software update fails with: **Error running transaction: file /usr/lib/.build-id/2f from install of java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 conflicts with file from package libgcc-8.2.1-2.fc29.x86_64** Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: See above. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Java software update fails. Expected results: Java software will update without error / conflict. Additional info:
That is weird. Those packages do contain the same directory, but they are exactly the same: rpm -q --dump libgcc-8.2.1-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm | grep 2f\ /usr/lib/.build-id/2f 0 1533181292 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 040755 root root 0 0 0 X $ rpm -q --dump java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 | grep 2f\ /usr/lib/.build-id/2f 0 1535049503 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 040755 root root 0 0 0 X Also if I uninstall java-openjdk, but keep libgcc installed, things install fine: $ rpm -q libgcc.x86_64 libgcc-8.2.1-2.fc29.x86_64 $ sudo yum install java-openjdk Last metadata expiration check: 0:42:31 ago on Sun 18 Nov 2018 02:18:15 AM CET. Dependencies resolved. ======================================================================================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ======================================================================================================================================= Installing: java-openjdk x86_64 1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29 fedora 210 k Transaction Summary ======================================================================================================================================= Install 1 Package Total download size: 210 k Installed size: 583 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: java-openjdk-10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64.rpm 4.3 MB/s | 210 kB 00:00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 131 kB/s | 210 kB 00:01 Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded. Running transaction Preparing : 1/1 Installed: java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 Installing : java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 1/1 Running scriptlet: java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 1/1 Installed: java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 Verifying : java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 1/1 Installed: java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 Complete!
My fresh installation doesn't include the java package you apparently removed (java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64) from yours -- or so it seems. These are the java packages on my PC: java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless-1.8.0.191.b12-8.fc29.x86_64 java-11-openjdk-headless-11.0.ea.28-2.fc29.x86_64 javapackages-tools-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch javapackages-filesystem-5.3.0-1.fc29.noarch *java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.28-2.fc29.x86_64* When I try to remove 'java-11-openjdk' it fails: [root@localhost ~]# rpm -e java-11-openjdk error: Failed dependencies: java is needed by (installed) pentaho-libxml-1.1.3-18.fc29.noarch [root@localhost ~]# rpm -e --force java-11-openjdk rpm: only installation and upgrading may be forced
hmmmm . . . one PC mysteriously cured itself(?), the other I resolved taking a note from Mark's playbook: dnf remove java-openjdk (operation removed LibreOffice) dnf install java-openjdk dnf install libreoffice Thank You for your help!
> [root@localhost ~]# rpm -e --force java-11-openjdk > rpm: only installation and upgrading may be forced --force is only useful for forcing install over file conflicts and such, for dependency issues you need --nodeps instead. As for the conflict itself, dunno. The symptoms sound like what happens when replacing a directory with a symlink in an upgrade, this typically goes away by removing old version and installing new. The curious thing is that looking at java-openjdk-1:10.0.2.13-7.fc29.x86_64 git history, such a version doesn't seem to have existed at all. Anyway, this seems to be an isolated incident for one reason or other, and without a reproducer there's not a whole lot to do. Closing, but feel free to reopen if it resurfaces.