Error running transaction: file /usr/share/doc/harfbuzz/NEWS from install of harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686 conflicts with file from package harfbuzz-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 Error: Transaction test error: file /usr/share/doc/harfbuzz/NEWS from install of harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686 conflicts with file from package harfbuzz-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: sudo dnf update harfbuzz Actual Results: Last metadata expiration check: 1:32:52 ago on Sat 20 Jul 2024 04:56:35. Dependencies resolved. ============================================================================ Package Architecture Version Repository Size ============================================================================ Upgrading: harfbuzz i686 8.5.0-1.fc40 updates 1.0 M Transaction Summary ============================================================================ Upgrade 1 Package Total download size: 1.0 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686.rpm 3.8 MB/s | 1.0 MB 00:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 1.5 MB/s | 1.0 MB 00:00 Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Expected Results: update succesful
I just tried to update my Fedora 40 toolbox and it worked fine for me $ sudo dnf update harfbuzz Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:26 ago on Sat 20 Jul 2024 04:38:03 PM IST. Dependencies resolved. ========================================================================================= Package Architecture Version Repository Size ========================================================================================= Upgrading: harfbuzz i686 8.5.0-1.fc40 updates 1.0 M harfbuzz x86_64 8.5.0-1.fc40 updates 1.0 M harfbuzz-devel x86_64 8.5.0-1.fc40 updates 446 k harfbuzz-icu x86_64 8.5.0-1.fc40 updates 16 k Transaction Summary ========================================================================================= Upgrade 4 Packages Total download size: 2.5 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: (1/4): harfbuzz-devel-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm 262 kB/s | 446 kB 00:01 (2/4): harfbuzz-icu-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm 112 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 (3/4): harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm 426 kB/s | 1.0 MB 00:02 (4/4): harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686.rpm 434 kB/s | 1.0 MB 00:02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 1.0 MB/s | 2.5 MB 00:02 Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded. Running transaction Preparing : 1/1 Upgrading : harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64 1/8 Upgrading : harfbuzz-icu-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64 2/8 Upgrading : harfbuzz-devel-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64 3/8 Upgrading : harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686 4/8 Cleanup : harfbuzz-8.4.0-1.fc40.i686 5/8 Cleanup : harfbuzz-devel-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 6/8 Cleanup : harfbuzz-icu-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 7/8 Cleanup : harfbuzz-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 8/8 Running scriptlet: harfbuzz-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 8/8 Upgraded: harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686 harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64 harfbuzz-devel-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64 harfbuzz-icu-8.5.0-1.fc40.x86_64 Complete!
> file /usr/share/doc/harfbuzz/NEWS from install of harfbuzz-8.5.0-1.fc40.i686 conflicts with file from package harfbuzz-8.4.0-1.fc40.x86_64 This is because of version mismatch (8.5.0 i686 v.s. 8.4.0 x86_64) Perhaps dnf metadata was downloaded from different mirrors between i686 and x86_64, x86_64 mirror metadata was perhaps old, not synced to the newest one. Waiting for mirrors to be updated, or refreshing dnf metadata several times will solve this issue.
thanks, that put me on the right track, I had some duplicates which I had to remove manually dnf repoquery --duplicates
I am still puzzled why dnf didn't pull the new 64bit package. (There is no separate i686 repo(data), so it shouldn't be possible to be out of sync like this.) Next time do please paste the complete output in "Actual results": the error is omitted there.
(In reply to Konrad from comment #3) > thanks, that put me on the right track, I had some duplicates which I had to remove manually Ah I should have read more carefully - then this is notabug I think.