Bug 1971333 - Error trying to upgrade to fedora 34
Summary: Error trying to upgrade to fedora 34
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1955884
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: nano
Version: 34
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kamil Dudka
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-06-13 17:09 UTC by Stefano Biagiotti
Modified: 2021-06-17 11:30 UTC (History)
15 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-06-16 10:55:21 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Full output from dnf system-upgrade (3.31 KB, text/plain)
2021-06-14 17:44 UTC, Stefano Biagiotti
no flags Details
solver.result (237.89 KB, text/plain)
2021-06-15 18:41 UTC, Stefano Biagiotti
no flags Details

Description Stefano Biagiotti 2021-06-13 17:09:10 UTC
# LANG=en dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=34
[...]
Error: 
 Problem: problem with installed package vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2875-1.fc33.noarch
  - package nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch
  - package vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch
  - package nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2956-1.fc34.noarch
  - package vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2956-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch
  - vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2875-1.fc33.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - conflicting requests
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Comment 1 Zdenek Dohnal 2021-06-14 09:55:41 UTC
Hi Stefano,

thank you for reporting the issue!

Unfortunately, I'm not able to reproduce the issue either on clean F33 server installation or on clean F33 workstation installation... I did a following steps:

1) installed the F33 iso
2) updated F33 to the latest packages
3) installed vim-default-editor, which needed to be installed with --allowerasing to replace nano-default-editor (those two cannot be installed together) 
4) installed system-upgrade dnf plugin and ran the command

But dnf command didn't show the error and the upgrade process started correctly.

Haven't you enabled some non-default repositories, which can cause conflicts? 

I see that dnf is trying to load in a pretty old vim-default-editor:


package nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch
                                                                                                 -------------------------------------------

Other strange thing is why dnf brings nano-default-editor into the transaction. IMO If it isn't installed on your F33 machine, then dnf shouldn't bring it into upgrade transaction, unless there is other package in the transaction, which requires nano-default-editor.

Comment 2 Stefano Biagiotti 2021-06-14 17:44:06 UTC
Created attachment 1791057 [details]
Full output from dnf system-upgrade

Hello Zdenek,
thanks for helping.

I indeed use some extra repositories, in attach the full output from dnf system-upgrade.

Comment 3 Stefano Biagiotti 2021-06-14 18:09:58 UTC
>I see that dnf is trying to load in a pretty old vim-default-editor:
>package nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch
>                                                                                                 -------------------------------------------

It is the vim-default-editor rpm in the base (no updates) Fedora 34 repository.
http://fedora.mirror.garr.it/fedora/linux/releases/34/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/v/vim-default-editor-8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch.rpm

>Other strange thing is why dnf brings nano-default-editor into the transaction. IMO If it isn't installed on your F33 machine, then dnf shouldn't bring it into upgrade transaction, unless there is other package in the transaction, which requires nano-default-editor.

Nano-default-editor is not installed.
$ LANG=en rpm -q nano-default-editor
package nano-default-editor is not installed

How can I check what brings it in the transaction?
$ LANG=en rpm -q --whatrequires nano-default-editor
no package requires nano-default-editor

Comment 4 Zdenek Dohnal 2021-06-15 04:53:24 UTC
(In reply to Stefano Biagiotti from comment #3)
> How can I check what brings it in the transaction?
> $ LANG=en rpm -q --whatrequires nano-default-editor
> no package requires nano-default-editor

'rpm' works only for already installed packages, you need to use 'dnf repoquery' for resolving over repositories (check 'man dnf').

I've found there is a option for getting debug information during dnf resolution - --debugsolver. The option creates 'debugdata' dir in the current directory, which contains debug data, which hopefully can bring some light to the issue.

Would you mind running the following command:

$ sudo dnf --debugsolver system-upgrade download --releasever=34

and then attaching file called 'solver.result' from 'debugdata' dir here?

Comment 5 Stefano Biagiotti 2021-06-15 18:41:38 UTC
Created attachment 1791345 [details]
solver.result

Excerpt:

problem d158a5cf info package vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch conflicts with system-default-editor provided by nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch
problem d158a5cf solution b5a0ac44 erase vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2875-1.fc33.noarch@@System
problem d158a5cf solution efdf184a deljob install oneof nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch@fedora [setevr,setarch]
problem d158a5cf solution fda9155e deljob install oneof nano-default-editor-5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch@fedora [setevr,setarch]

Comment 6 Zdenek Dohnal 2021-06-16 04:42:27 UTC
Thank you for the data!

Unfortunately the messages don't ring a bell for me :( - I will reassign the issue to dnf and ask their team for review what's wrong here, because currently I don't have an idea.

Comment 7 Zdenek Dohnal 2021-06-16 06:09:01 UTC
Hi team!

would you mind reviewing the issue from dnf side?

Stefano doesn't have nano-default-editor installed, he has vim-default-editor installed and wants to upgrade from F33 to F34.

Here are the data from F33 and F34 regarding the packages:

===================================
F33:

$ dnf repoquery --conflicts vim-default-editor
nano-default-editor < 5.3-3
system-default-editor

$ dnf repoquery --provides vim-default-editor
Last metadata expiration check: 1:04:12 ago on Wed 16 Jun 2021 06:45:46 AM CEST.
config(vim-default-editor) = 2:8.2.2875-1.fc33
system-default-editor
vim-default-editor = 2:8.2.2875-1.fc33

$ dnf repoquery --conflicts nano-default-editor
system-default-editor

$ dnf repoquery --provides nano-default-editor
config(nano-default-editor) = 5.3-4.fc33
nano-default-editor = 5.3-4.fc33
system-default-editor

$ dnf repoquery --whatprovides system-default-editor
nano-default-editor-0:5.3-4.fc33.noarch
vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2875-1.fc33.noarch

$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires nano-default-editor
<Nothing>

====================================
F34 (clean install):

$ dnf repoquery --conflicts vim-default-editor
nano-default-editor < 5.3-3
system-default-editor

$ dnf repoquery --provides vim-default-editor
config(vim-default-editor) = 2:8.2.2637-1.fc34
config(vim-default-editor) = 2:8.2.2956-2.fc34
system-default-editor

$ dnf repoquery --conflicts nano-default-editor
system-default-editor

$ dnf repoquery --provides nano-default-editor
config(nano-default-editor) = 5.6.1-1.fc34
nano-default-editor = 5.6.1-1.fc34
system-default-editor

$ $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides system-default-editor
nano-default-editor-0:5.6.1-1.fc34.noarch
vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2637-1.fc34.noarch
vim-default-editor-2:8.2.2956-2.fc34.noarch

$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires nano-default-editor
<Nothing>

===============================================================

I tried the upgrade myself and I wasn't able to reproduce it.

Stefano ran the dnf command with --debugsolver and uploaded solver.result, so he has more debug info in his 'debugdata' dir, but I don't know how to debug this issue further.

It doesn't make sense to me why dnf brings nano-default-editor into transaction, when it isn't installed.

Comment 8 Pavla Kratochvilova 2021-06-16 07:13:33 UTC
Hello,

thanks for bringing this issue to our attention.

It's a duplicate of bug 1955884. The problem is that nano-default-editor is a part of group Standard which is being upgraded during the system-upgrade. As a workaround, you can exclude the nano-default-editor package (using the '--exclude' CLI option or the 'excludepkgs' config option).

Let me know if that works for you and I'd close this as a duplicate of the other bug.

Comment 9 Zdenek Dohnal 2021-06-16 10:55:21 UTC
Hi Pavla,

thank you for looking into it!

Yes, it is a duplicate - I and Kamil proposed how to solve the issue in the original bug, so I'll close this bug as a dupe.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1955884 ***

Comment 10 Stefano Biagiotti 2021-06-17 11:30:32 UTC
This last comment just to confirm --exclude nano-default-editor works and dnf is now downloading the rpms.
Thank you.


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