Created attachment 324755 [details] screenhot of failed install Description of problem: Upgrade system via Applet 3.0.9 fails Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):3.0.9 How reproducible: Update system via internet after installation Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: leafnode conflicts with suck-4.3.2-23.fc10.x86_64 Expected results: Additional info:
Rpm is just the messenger here... rpm_check_debug test in yum failing suggests that yum depsolve got something wrong (failed to notice a conflict in this case I suppose).
Doing "yum install suck leafnode" from the cmd line wfm. Failing with: --> Finished Dependency Resolution suck-4.3.2-23.fc10.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems --> suck conflicts with leafnode Error: suck conflicts with leafnode
wtf? Why assign to PackageKit? not a yum bug != PackageKit...
Did you look at the BZ? The screenshot pretty clearly indicates PK as the UI, and given that yum cmd line works ... I'm not sure what you expect me to do with it.
(In reply to comment #1) > Rpm is just the messenger here... rpm_check_debug test in yum failing suggests > that yum depsolve got something wrong (failed to notice a conflict in this case > I suppose). PK doesn't do depsolving, yum does. I'm just doing txmbr = self.yumbase.update and then running the transaction.
$ pkcon install suck leafnode Error: transaction-error : suck conflicts with leafnode So pkcon behaves just like yum-cli, more info about the user system is needed to detect where the problem is triggered. rpm -q suck leafnode yum --version the output from 'yum update', so we can see what packages is in play when the error occurs. Richard: i agree with James, this is bug should stay with pk, if it cant be reproduced with yum-cli, we must do the prober investigation and collect information before kicking it over to yum. In all cases with pk update problems a 'yum update' should be performed, to document what packages is being updated and to see if we get the same errors.
Does this issue still happen?
Reporter, please, do you have some feedback about bug? is it solved? thanks. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Yes, it seems solved, as neither leafnode nor suck seem to appear in the update list anymore when reviewing the update list. Thank you for your assistance, regards,