Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Hello, Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (mhroncok). Your package (qmasterpassword) Fails To Install in Fedora 36: can't install qmasterpassword: - nothing provides libscrypt.so.0(libscrypt)(64bit) needed by qmasterpassword-1.2.2-16.fc36.x86_64 If you know about this problem and are planning on fixing it, please acknowledge so by setting the bug status to ASSIGNED. If you don't have time to maintain this package, consider orphaning it, so maintainers of dependent packages realize the problem. If you don't react accordingly to the policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/), your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks. P.S. The data was generated solely from koji buildroot, so it might be newer than the latest compose or the content on mirrors. P.P.S. If this bug has been reported in the middle of upgrading multiple dependent packages, please consider using side tags: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#updating-inter-dependent-packages Thanks!
Hello, This is the first reminder (step 3 from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/#_package_removal_for_long_standing_ftbfs_and_fti_bugs). If you know about this problem and are planning on fixing it, please acknowledge so by setting the bug status to ASSIGNED. If you don't have time to maintain this package, consider orphaning it, so maintainers of dependent packages realize the problem.
I looked into this but I don't see the root cause. There's a difference in the provided libs for libscrypt in f35 vs rawhide: f35: rpm -qP libscrypt libscrypt = 1.21-16.fc35 libscrypt(x86-64) = 1.21-16.fc35 libscrypt.so.0()(64bit) libscrypt.so.0(libscrypt)(64bit) rawhide: rpm -qP libscrypt libscrypt = 1.21-17.fc36 libscrypt(x86-64) = 1.21-17.fc36 libscrypt.so.0()(64bit) I'm not sure why rawhide suddenly misses 'libscrypt.so.0(libscrypt)(64bit)'. Any ideas @mhroncok
No ideas. Looping in libscrypt maintainer. In the meantime, have you tried to build the package in mock or as a scratch build? Does that still require libscrypt.so.0(libscrypt)(64bit)?
A mock build fails with: Error: Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job - nothing provides libscrypt.so()(64bit) needed by libscrypt-devel-1.21-17.fc36.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) And building libscrypt in mock, and then trying to install those (mock -r fedora-36-x86_64 --install libscrypt-{,devel-}1.21-17.fc36.x86_64.rpm) results in: Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libscrypt.so()(64bit) needed by libscrypt-devel-1.21-17.fc36.x86_64 Which is weird because: rpm -qP libscrypt-1.21-17.fc36.x86_64.rpm libscrypt = 1.21-17.fc36 libscrypt(x86-64) = 1.21-17.fc36 libscrypt.so.0()(64bit)
libscrypt.so()(64bit) != libscrypt.so.0()(64bit) (see the zero)
Right, of course.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 36 development cycle. Changing version to 36.
Please proceed with the rebuild once "libscrypt-devel" update is available in testing
Hello, Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (mhroncok). All subpackages of a package against which this bug was filled are now installable or removed from Fedora 37. Thanks for taking care of it!
Hello, Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (mhroncok). All subpackages of a package against which this bug was filled are now installable or removed from Fedora 36. Thanks for taking care of it!