Description of problem: nwipe cannot be installed as nothing provides /usr/sbin/hdparm. The hdparm package provides /sbin/hdparm, which doesn't satisfy nwipe's requirement. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): nwipe-0.37-1.el8.x86_64 hdparm-9.54-4.el8.x86_64 How reproducible: Every installation attempt. Steps to Reproduce: 1.dnf install nwipe 2. 3. Actual results: # dnf install nwipe Last metadata expiration check: 1:49:34 ago on Fri 13 Sep 2024 07:48:28 AM EDT. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides /usr/sbin/hdparm needed by nwipe-0.37-1.el8.x86_64 from epel (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) Expected results: I would expect nwipe to find packages that satisfy its dependencies so that it can be installed. Additional info:
Nwipe 0.37 specifically searches in the following locations for hdparm, first it just checks whether hdparm is located within any of the root $PATH directories. If it doesn't find hdparm in any of those directories it then specifically checks /sbin/ and /usr/bin/, however if hdparm is located in /usr/sbin/ on Red Hat and /usr/sbin isn't included in roots $PATH then it won't find it. If it helps I can fix this upstream by adding /usr/sbin/ as a third specific location for nwipe to look in?
I think I may have misunderstood. Looks like you may be referring to a packaging issue, not that a running nwipe can't find hdparm. Just for reference /sbin is symbolically linked to /usr/sbin under Ubuntu so they are one and the same. Is that the same under Red Hat?
Precisely - this issue is purely a packaging problem. For some reason, the hdparm package in EL8 environments doesn't satisfy the requirement for /usr/sbin/hdparm, even though - as you noted - /sbin is symbolically linked to /usr/sbin. The EL9, Fedora 40, Fedora 41, and Fedora Rawhide environments all satisfy this requirement. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nwipe/pull-request/2 addresses the issue for EL8 without breaking the other environments. I targeted that PR to rawhide with the intent to submit a PR to merge it into EL8 if accepted.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-2e88fc3afd (nwipe-0.37-4.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-2e88fc3afd
Hello John, thanks for the report and for the suggested PR for the fix. I have changed to depend to hdparm package (which name seem to be stable) rather than to binary location (which apparently is not consistent enough across the redhat releases. Please can you test the nwipe-0.37-4.el8 ? Currently can be downloaded from koji https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2546197 or you can wait for it to appear epel-testing.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-2e88fc3afd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-2e88fc3afd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Hello Michal - not a problem! My apologies for my delay in getting back to you. By the time I was able to verify the change, it was already available in epel-testing. Works perfectly! Thank you very much!
Thank you for testing. I will wait the grace period and then push to stable epel8.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-2e88fc3afd (nwipe-0.37-4.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.