Bug 2216660 - The --skip-broken option does not work as expected
Summary: The --skip-broken option does not work as expected
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf5
Version: 39
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: rpm-software-management
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-06-22 06:23 UTC by Petr Šplíchal
Modified: 2024-11-27 21:13 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-11-27 21:13:41 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 2216055 0 unspecified CLOSED DNF5 documented option --skip-broken throws a syntax error 2024-11-27 21:13:39 UTC

Description Petr Šplíchal 2023-06-22 06:23:54 UTC
A non-zero exit code is returned for a missing package when --skip-broken used.
The available package is not installed.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
dnf install -y --skip-broken tree forest
echo $?
Actual Results:  
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: forest
# echo $?
1


Expected Results:  
tree package installed, missing forest ignored and 0 returned

dnf5-5.0.14-1.fc39.x86_64

Comment 1 Pavla Kratochvilova 2023-06-22 07:15:24 UTC
The --skip-broken is in DNF5 split between --skip-broken (to skip packages uninstallable due to depsolv problems) and --skip-unavailable (to skip packages unavailable in repositories). The change is documented here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/blob/main/doc/changes.rst#strict-configuration-option-deprecation (this describes the "strict" configuration option, but --skip-broken was an alias for it).

Comment 2 Marek Blaha 2023-06-22 07:17:48 UTC
So in your case try `dnf5 install -y --skip-unavailable tree forest`.

I discovered a gap in the dnf5 install command man pages - these options are not documented - upstream issue https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/644.

Comment 3 Petr Šplíchal 2023-06-22 08:32:14 UTC
Thanks for the info. Just wonder, doesn't the "old" --skip-broken behaviour cover quite a frequent use case? This seems like a backward-incompatible change which will affect many users, I'd say.

Comment 4 Ondrej Hudlicky 2023-06-29 14:07:34 UTC
Why dnf is changing behavior of --skip-broken, rather then preserving it? 
This change broke our test infrastructure on many place and we see huge risks it will affect Fedora/CentOS Stream/RHEL users and customers. 
changes.rst mention that strict config option was a problem that it did two things - but we see it as benefit do these together.
Is there any issue introducing --skip-uninstallable and --skip-unavailable while keeping --skip-broken ?

Comment 5 Ondrej Hudlicky 2023-06-29 14:40:44 UTC
Also with introducing this incompatilibity, customers which have mutiple versions of RHEL would need to start maintaining RHEL release specific scripts/config

Comment 6 nucleo 2023-07-01 23:45:03 UTC
# dnf5 --skip-broken upgrade
Unknown argument "--skip-broken" for command "dnf5". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.

# rpm -qa | grep dnf5
libdnf5-5.0.15-2.fc39.x86_64
libdnf5-cli-5.0.15-2.fc39.x86_64
dnf5-5.0.15-2.fc39.x86_64
dnf5-plugins-5.0.15-2.fc39.x86_64

Comment 7 Jan Kolarik 2023-07-13 13:56:00 UTC
The issue with the position of the argument is being discussed in related bugzilla there: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216055.

Comment 8 Ondrej Hudlicky 2023-07-27 08:34:28 UTC
Can you please provide ETA for resolution of this regression? It causes stability issues in our CI/Testing pipelines.

Comment 9 Fedora Release Engineering 2023-08-16 08:07:48 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle.
Changing version to 39.

Comment 10 Aoife Moloney 2024-11-08 10:54:08 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 39 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 39 on 2024-11-26.
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
'version' of '39'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden.
Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 39 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 Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Comment 11 Aoife Moloney 2024-11-27 21:13:41 UTC
Fedora Linux 39 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-11-26.

Fedora Linux 39 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 Linux
please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version
field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see
the version field.

If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an
active release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


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