Bug 2392314 - mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64
Summary: mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from packag...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: mesa-compat
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Neal Gompa
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-09-01 07:55 UTC by Milan Crha
Modified: 2026-01-21 04:25 UTC (History)
12 users (show)

Fixed In Version: mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc43
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-09-18 00:18:28 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Milan Crha 2025-09-01 07:55:31 UTC
Trying to update my rawhide machine I get this error from the dnf:

file /usr/lib64/libxatracker.so.2.5.0 from install of mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64

The mesa-compat-libxatracker is not installed in the system, it's to-be installed.

If the mesa-compat-libxatracker is supposed to replace mesa-libxatracker, should it obsolete it in the .spec file?

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-01 19:48:49 UTC
HI milan,
In rawhide we now have an updated mesa - version 25.2.1. libxatracker is obsolete on mesa from this version onwards.... any version before that, the mesa will provide the libxatracker package. Can u try with the latest mesa in rawhide to check if the issue is still seen?

Thanks!

Comment 2 Milan Crha 2025-09-02 08:26:22 UTC
Looking into the details, maybe the problem is elsewhere. To reproduce this, I:
a) install mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm
b) install xorg-x11-drv-vmware-13.4.0-9.fc43.x86_64.rpm
c) run `dnf update`

The result is:

# dnf update
Updating and loading repositories:
Repositories loaded.
Package                                              Arch         Version                                               Repository                        Size
Upgrading:
 xorg-x11-drv-vmware                                 x86_64       13.4.0-11.fc44                                        rawhide                      172.9 KiB
   replacing xorg-x11-drv-vmware                     x86_64       13.4.0-9.fc43                                         @commandline                 172.9 KiB
Installing dependencies:
 mesa-compat-libxatracker                            x86_64       25.0.7-1.fc44                                         rawhide                        8.2 MiB

Transaction Summary:
 Installing:         1 package
 Upgrading:          1 package
 Replacing:          1 package

Total size of inbound packages is 2 MiB. Need to download 2 MiB.
After this operation, 8 MiB extra will be used (install 8 MiB, remove 173 KiB).
Is this ok [y/N]: y
[1/2] xorg-x11-drv-vmware-0:13.4.0-11.fc44.x86_64                                100% | 956.8 KiB/s |  83.2 KiB |  00m00s
[2/2] mesa-compat-libxatracker-0:25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64                            100% |  10.3 MiB/s |   1.5 MiB |  00m00s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2/2] Total                                                                      100% |   1.5 MiB/s |   1.5 MiB |  00m01s
Running transaction
Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
  - file /usr/lib64/libxatracker.so.2.5.0 from install of mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64


When I uninstall xorg-x11-drv-vmware, there is nothing to update and dnf is happy.

From that, if I understand it correctly, the xorg-x11-drv-vmware brings in mesa-compat-libxatracker, but that cannot be installed together with the old `mesa-libxatracker` package. I do not know how it is usually done, maybe the new mesa should obsolete the mesa-libxatracker package in the .spec file, but which subpackage of the mesa it should be I do not know.

These are the mesa packages my rawhide machine has currently installed:

$ rpm -qa | grep mesa | sort

mesa-dri-drivers-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-filesystem-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libEGL-devel-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libgbm-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libgbm-devel-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libGL-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libGL-devel-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-libGLU-9.0.3-7.fc43.x86_64
mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64
mesa-va-drivers-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64
mesa-vulkan-drivers-25.2.1-1.fc44.x86_64

Thus most of them (only not all) are from the 25.2.1 release.

Comment 3 José Expósito 2025-09-02 08:38:31 UTC
> I do not know how it is usually done, maybe the new mesa should obsolete the
> mesa-libxatracker package in the .spec file, but which subpackage of the mesa
> it should be I do not know.

I think that's the case. Anusha, could this be due to missing "Obsoletes:" and "Provides:" in the spec file?

Comment 4 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-02 21:18:17 UTC
Thanks for the logs above. Saw how it is manages for the other deprecated packages, makes sense. Adding the missing fragments.

Comment 5 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-05 16:34:11 UTC
@mcrha  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/pull-request/85 this is now merged. You Should not be seeing the issue anymore.

Comment 6 Milan Crha 2025-09-08 08:49:58 UTC
Which version is that built with, please? When dnf finds mesa 25.2.2-1.fc44, it still fails (it found many more mesa* packages to update, I mention only one for readability):

   # dnf update
   . 
   .
   .
    mesa-dri-drivers                      x86_64 25.2.2-1.fc44           rawhide  47.9 MiB
      replacing mesa-dri-drivers          x86_64 25.2.1-1.fc44           rawhide  47.9 MiB
   .
   .
   .
    xorg-x11-drv-vmware                   x86_64 13.4.0-11.fc44          rawhide 172.9 KiB
      replacing xorg-x11-drv-vmware       x86_64 13.4.0-9.fc43           @comman 172.9 KiB

   Transaction Summary:
    Installing:         8 packages
    Upgrading:         43 packages
    Replacing:         43 packages

   .
   .
   .

   Running transaction
   Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
     - file /usr/lib64/libxatracker.so.2.5.0 from install of mesa-compat-libxatracker-25.0.7-1.fc44.x86_64
       conflicts with file from package mesa-libxatracker-25.1.4-2.fc43.x86_64

Comment 7 Anusha Srivatsa 2025-09-08 12:38:44 UTC
@mcrha 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/pull-request/83#comment-281397

You are right, between the needed changes being accepted and propagating the build, spirv-translator changed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/pull-request/83#comment-281397

Comment 8 Milan Crha 2025-09-08 15:21:19 UTC
Okay, no problem, I can retest once the probable fix is in the mirrors. If you can give me a version of the mesa package I should test with, then it'll be best.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2025-09-14 11:39:17 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 (mesa-25.2.2-5.fc43, mesa-compat-25.0.7-1.fc43, and 3 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-72be889993

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2025-09-15 01:33:16 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-72be889993`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-72be889993

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2025-09-16 14:56:08 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-72be889993`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-72be889993

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2025-09-18 00:18:28 UTC
FEDORA-2025-72be889993 (mesa-25.2.2-6.fc43, mesa-compat-25.0.7-2.fc43, and 3 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2025-09-18 10:52:39 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084 (mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084

Comment 14 José Expósito 2025-09-18 10:55:02 UTC
I just pushed a new build including a change that should fix the problem:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2025-09-19 02:52:27 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 16 Milan Crha 2025-09-19 07:00:13 UTC
I'm waiting for the mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc44 to show up in the mirrors, to verify it works. It pick currently the 25.0.7-2 for me, which still reproduces the problem, thus it'll be easy to verify. I guess it'll be ready after the weekend, then I'll leave a comment here.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2025-09-22 00:17:21 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d0d0983084 (mesa-compat-25.0.7-3.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Milan Crha 2025-09-22 07:32:38 UTC
Confirming, the update of my rawhide machine went fine with this new version.

Comment 19 Red Hat Bugzilla 2026-01-21 04:25:05 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days


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