https://github.com/ignatenkobrain/dnf-modular-kkt#how-does-dnf-do-dependency-resolution-wron-for-modularity We have test-app rpm which depends on kkt >= 50. And we have 2 kkt build versions: 30 and 80. And they are packed into a modules as following: * kkt:konsky:2019:deadbeef:x86_64 ** Contains kkt-80-1.x86_64 * kkt:barani:2019:bbadbeef:x86_64 ** Contains kkt-30-1.x86_64 * test-app:master:2019:deadbeef:x86_64: ** Contains test-app-1-1.x86_64 ** Requires kkt: [] That means, if you would be about to install test-app, you would get test-app-1-1 and kkt-80-1… But not with DNF. What you will get is: Error: Problem: package test-app-1-1.x86_64 requires kkt >= 50, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - package kkt-80-1.x86_64 is excluded --- dnf-4.0.10-2.fc30.noarch
Well, this behaviour is expected. Dnf has agreed with modularity team on this implementation, which requires more exact module requirements. So at the moment you (as a packager) should use particular streams as a modular dependency. That means: * test-app:master ** Requires kkt: [konsky] The other way is defining :konsky stream as a default stream of kkt module, but remember, that user can override repository defined module defaults by his own version. You are right, there could be an alternative modularity implementation that behaves as you expected. But dnf went with excluding packages from non-enabled streams.
(In reply to Marek Blaha from comment #1) > Well, this behaviour is expected. Dnf has agreed with modularity team on > this implementation, which requires more exact module requirements. So at > the moment you (as a packager) should use particular streams as a modular > dependency. That means: > * test-app:master > ** Requires kkt: [konsky] > The other way is defining :konsky stream as a default stream of kkt module, > but remember, that user can override repository defined module defaults by > his own version. > > You are right, there could be an alternative modularity implementation that > behaves as you expected. But dnf went with excluding packages from > non-enabled streams. But now imagine that both of streams satisfy dependency without any problems (since test-app would have just Requires: kkt, without versioned requires). And I have some RPM installed locally which has Conflicts: kkt < 50. In this case, there **is** solution (just install different stream) but dnf would still blindly try to install conflicting package. And me, as maintainer of a module, I have no chance to prevent this.
I believe that it's related to bug#1717117. DNF implements the current modularity design which prohibits stream switching. If the design changes, we'll also look into changing the code and DNF's behavior.
(In reply to Daniel Mach from comment #3) > I believe that it's related to bug#1717117. > DNF implements the current modularity design which prohibits stream > switching. > If the design changes, we'll also look into changing the code and DNF's > behavior. This has absolutely nothing to do with stream switching. This is INITIAL installation.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to '31'.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to 31.
I got an information that all issues related to modularity should be redirected to distribution component, changing component. Enabling of non default stream automatically because installing package has unsatisfied dependency requires a change in design of modularity
(In reply to Jaroslav Mracek from comment #7) > I got an information that all issues related to modularity should be > redirected to distribution component, changing component. Oh? From whom? That seems like a bad idea as I'm not aware of any modularity folks watching distribution. Will see if I can come up with somthing better here.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 31 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 31 on 2020-11-24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '31'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 31 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 31 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-11-24. Fedora 31 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.