Upstream PCP CI has recently started failing on rawhide (only). It seems to relate to a recent systemd packaging change. In the rawhide container build we observe the following: STEP 1/6: FROM registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide Trying to pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide... Getting image source signatures Copying blob sha256:018ea667a195e1d9b6fd02ff50d063fe72617185bab276cd78556f507a0ab70a Copying blob sha256:018ea667a195e1d9b6fd02ff50d063fe72617185bab276cd78556f507a0ab70a Copying config sha256:3eed2a11714c22d2419859c2ef298a96afc41c0e8e4f43e41dc21f99b40606bc Writing manifest to image destination Storing signatures STEP 2/6: RUN dnf install -y systemd Updating and loading repositories: Fedora rawhide openh264 (From Cisco) - 100% | 13.2 KiB/s | 6.0 KiB | 00m00s Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packa 100% | 14.0 MiB/s | 21.6 MiB | 00m02s Repositories loaded. Failed to resolve the transaction: Problem: problem with installed package - installed package systemd-standalone-sysusers-257.2-17.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with systemd provided by systemd-257.2-17.fc42.i686 from rawhide - package systemd-257.2-17.fc42.i686 from rawhide conflicts with systemd-standalone-sysusers provided by systemd-standalone-sysusers-257.2-17.fc42.x86_64 from rawhide - conflicting requests - installed package systemd-standalone-sysusers-257.2-17.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with systemd provided by systemd-257.2-17.fc42.x86_64 from rawhide - package systemd-257.2-17.fc42.x86_64 from rawhide conflicts with systemd-standalone-sysusers provided by systemd-standalone-sysusers-257.2-17.fc42.x86_64 from rawhide Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install the systemd package in a rawhide container from registry.fedoraproject.org 2. 3. Actual Results: RPM install fails with error above. Expected Results: No errors.
'dnf install --allowerasing systemd' is a workaround. This has been reported before. Which packages should go into the image is a choice made by the people configuring the image… I think this needs to be fixed there. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2344333 ***
Thanks for the explanation - we'll add the workaround into our CI I guess.