Bug 2350221 - libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes libtracker-sparql < 3.8 provided by libtracker-sparql-3.7.3-5.fc42.x86_64, but gtk4-4.17.5-1.fc42.x86_64 requires libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit)
Summary: libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes libtracker-sparql < 3.8 provided...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: tinysparql
Version: 42
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: GNOME SIG Unassigned
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-03-06 02:21 UTC by Matt Fagnani
Modified: 2026-06-08 16:41 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-06-08 16:41:50 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matt Fagnani 2025-03-06 02:21:54 UTC
I ran sudo dnf offline-upgrade download --refresh in a Fedora 42 KDE installation with GNOME installed. dnf problems were shown. libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes libtracker-sparql < 3.8 provided by libtracker-sparql-3.7.3-5.fc42.x86_64, but gtk4-4.17.5-1.fc42.x86_64 requires libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit).

Problem 1: package libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 from updates-testing obsoletes libtracker-sparql < 3.8 provided by libtracker-sparql-3.7.3-5.fc42.x86_64 from fedora
  - package gtk4-4.17.5-1.fc42.x86_64 from updates-testing requires libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package libtinysparql-3.8~rc-6.fc42.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package gtk4-4.17.4-2.fc42.x86_64
 Problem 2: package libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 from updates-testing obsoletes libtracker-sparql < 3.8 provided by libtracker-sparql-3.7.3-5.fc42.x86_64 from fedora
  - package tinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 from updates-testing requires libtinysparql(x86-64) = 3.9~rc-1.fc42, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gtk4-devel-4.17.5-1.fc42.x86_64 from updates-testing requires libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package tinysparql-3.8~rc-6.fc42.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package gtk4-devel-4.17.4-2.fc42.x86_64

libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42 provides libtracker-sparql = 3.9~rc-1.fc42 and libtracker-sparql(x86-64) = 3.9~rc-1.fc42 but not libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=42026974 I'm not sure if this is a problem with gtk4 or tinysparql as they're in two different updates in updates-testing https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-21ad388223 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6e0be2957f

This problem prevented updating to gtk4-4.17.5-1.fc42.x86_64

Skipping packages with broken dependencies:
 gtk4                                  x86_64    4.17.5-1.fc42                          updates-testing          26.0 MiB
 gtk4-devel                            x86_64    4.17.5-1.fc42                          updates-testing          22.0 MiB

sudo dnf repoquery --whatprovides 'libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit)'
libtracker-sparql-0:3.7.3-5.fc42.x86_64


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Boot a Fedora 42 KDE installation with GNOME installed and updates-testing enabled
2. Log in to Plasma
3. Start Konsole
4. Run sudo dnf offline-upgrade download --refresh

Actual Results:  
libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes libtracker-sparql < 3.8 provided by libtracker-sparql-3.7.3-5.fc42.x86_64, but gtk4-4.17.5-1.fc42.x86_64 requires libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit)

Expected Results:  
No dnf problems should've been shown.

Comment 1 Matt Fagnani 2025-03-06 05:03:44 UTC
/usr/lib64/libtinysparql-3.0.so.0 and /usr/lib64/libtinysparql-3.0.so.0.900.0 are in libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm but it doesn't provide  libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit). https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=42026974 I'm thinking that the problem is libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42 is missing the provides libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), so I'm reassigning this to tinysparql.

Comment 2 Matt Fagnani 2025-03-06 05:05:36 UTC
Sorry I meant to write that /usr/lib64/libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0 and /usr/lib64/libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0.900.0 are in libtinysparql-3.9~rc-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm but it doesn't provide libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit). https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=42026974

Comment 3 Nieves 2025-03-11 15:21:19 UTC
Hello, this problem should be solved as soon as the updates get stable.

Comment 4 Fedora Release Engineering 2026-05-06 12:27:15 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 42 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 42 on 2026-05-13.
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 '42'.

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 42 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 5 Aoife Moloney 2026-06-08 16:41:50 UTC
Fedora Linux 42 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2026-05-27.

Fedora Linux 42 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.