Description of problem: lumina-desktop from epel9 has missing dependencies, causing it to be uninstallable. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): lumina-desktop-1.6.2-2.el9 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. dnf install lumina-desktop Actual results: Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides fluxbox(x86-64) needed by lumina-desktop-1.6.2-2.el9.x86_64 - nothing provides oxygen-cursor-themes needed by lumina-desktop-1.6.2-2.el9.x86_64 Expected results: successful installation
If this cannot be resolved then lumina-desktop must be retired from epel9.
Well, build of oxygen for epel9 shouldn't be a big issue. I'll open a request to build fluxbox, too.
Okay, we need to take a deeper look into runtime dependencies and maybe handle them more flexibly. E.g. Why oxygen enforced and not use a more generic theme dependency? Also, the WM doesn't need to be fluxbox afaik. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lumina-desktop/blob/rawhide/f/lumina-desktop.spec#_37 # Runtime requirements (?) Requires: oxygen-cursor-themes Requires: qt5-style-oxygen%{?_isa} Requires: fluxbox%{?_isa}
Lumina Developer here. As mentioned by Rapheal, Lumina doesn't need Fluxbox, but it does need something to serve as the WM. Fluxbox is the default that we recommend because it's what we test with, but it can be openbox, i3, etc. The oxygen theme was selected back when the desktop was first developed and probably doesn't need to be a dependency anymore, off the top of my head I cant think of a reason why Lumina wouldn't run with out it. The old google material design icons are included as a fallback, so everything that's needed should be covered by that. There might be something missing here or there, and if people find that they can submit a bug ticket to the Lumina repos and I'll make sure that gets fixed. I've been considering working Fluxbox and pulling it into the Lumina Tree because there are a lot of small bugs in fluxbox that havent been fixed which annoy me, but that's going to take a while.
As lumina requires any WM it must be the way to define "Requires: <any_wm>". I can remove "Requires: fluxbox", but this seems not right way.
(In reply to jt from comment #4) > The oxygen theme was selected back when the desktop was first developed and > probably doesn't need to be a dependency anymore, off the top of my head I > cant think of a reason why Lumina wouldn't run with out it. As I understand "oxygen theme" == "oxygen-cursor-themes"? What about qt5-style-oxygen? Is it really required? It costs ~116MB with dependencies.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-16b10b4362 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-16b10b4362
Works for me on F36 +openbox -fluxbox -*oxygen*
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-16b10b4362 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-16b10b4362 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-16b10b4362 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
> As I understand "oxygen theme" == "oxygen-cursor-themes"? > What about qt5-style-oxygen? Is it really required? It costs ~116MB with dependencies. Violation of packaging requirement "none of the package’s dependencies provide the directory". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #11) > > As I understand "oxygen theme" == "oxygen-cursor-themes"? > > What about qt5-style-oxygen? Is it really required? It costs ~116MB with dependencies. > > Violation of packaging requirement "none of the package’s dependencies > provide the directory". > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ I cannot find what directories about. Everything seems ok (IMHO).
> Violation of packaging requirement "none of the package’s dependencies provide the directory". > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ This bug is about the package being installable. It is now resolved. If you've found unowned directories in this package, please open a new bug that identifies which directories are unowned.