Description of problem: Running 'yum update' leads to the following errors: [root@feynman ~]# yum update Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit, : versionlock Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package tex-texlive-common-doc.noarch 1:svn26673-1 will be obsoleting ---> Package tex-texlive-en-doc.noarch 1:svn26703-1 will be obsoleting ---> Package texlive-texlive-common-doc.noarch 1:0.svn26673-8.fc18 will be obsoleted --> Processing Dependency: texlive-texlive-common-doc for package: 1:texlive-collection-documentation-base-0.svn17091-8.20121115_r28267.fc18.noarch ---> Package texlive-texlive-en-doc.noarch 1:0.svn26703-8.fc18 will be obsoleted --> Processing Dependency: texlive-texlive-en-doc for package: 1:texlive-collection-documentation-base-0.svn17091-8.20121115_r28267.fc18.noarch --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: 1:texlive-collection-documentation-base-0.svn17091-8.20121115_r28267.fc18.noarch (@fedora) Requires: texlive-texlive-common-doc Removing: 1:texlive-texlive-common-doc-0.svn26673-8.fc18.noarch (@fedora) texlive-texlive-common-doc = 1:0.svn26673-8.fc18 Obsoleted By: 1:tex-texlive-common-doc-svn26673-1.noarch (texlive) Not found Error: Package: 1:texlive-collection-documentation-base-0.svn17091-8.20121115_r28267.fc18.noarch (@fedora) Requires: texlive-texlive-en-doc Removing: 1:texlive-texlive-en-doc-0.svn26703-8.fc18.noarch (@fedora) texlive-texlive-en-doc = 1:0.svn26703-8.fc18 Obsoleted By: 1:tex-texlive-en-doc-svn26703-1.noarch (texlive) Not found You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Running F18 w/ the following texlive repo: # cat texlive-release.repo [texlive] name=TeX Live baseurl=http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/texlive/2012/packages.f18/ enabled=1 metadata_expire=1d gpgcheck=0
Proposed fix: Disable texlive repo yum erase tex-texlive-en-doc tex-texlive-common-doc yum install texlive-texlive-en-doc texlive-texlive-common-doc With texlive being in "updates" for Fedora 18, there is no need to use the fedorapeople repo.
Yep, that worked, with 'yum install texlive' sufficing to reinstall the various texlive packages that the yum erase killed.
(Thanks!, by the way)
Since this has been resolved, I'm closing the bug.
*** Bug 901802 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #4) > Since this has been resolved, I'm closing the bug. How has this bug been resolved? I proposed a workaround to fix the state of an upgraded install which wasn't by user error but by packaging mess-up; that is something different. People upgrading from F17+texlive repo to F18 encountered this bug, it has been confirmed. You can close as "NOTABUG" only if you say "You used texlive on top of F17? Your problem!". That would be valid, but please say so if you think so. If the bug has been resolved by removing the duplicate packages from the texlive or F18 repo, please so and resolve correspondingly (UPSTREAM(*) resp. ERRATA). (*) The texlive repo is neither a Fedora repo nor the real upstream, but something in between.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Since this has been resolved, I'm closing the bug. > > How has this bug been resolved? I proposed a workaround to fix the state of > an upgraded install which wasn't by user error but by packaging mess-up; > that is something different. I don't think that this was caused by packaging mess-up. Texlive repo is an unofficial repository, there is no bug in Fedora. Your workaround is in fact the correct solution: don't use unofficial repo and install official packages instead. Also I'm not sure there is much Jindrich can do with the update path, the only solution I can think of is to create a new version of tex-texlive-common-doc in the unofficial repo, which would be just an empty package without the obsolete that caused the problem. However that's a bit of a hack, leaving system in a state that's not exactly pretty and might confuse admins. I'll leave this bug open for Jindrich to decide if he wants to do something with the update path but other than that I still think it's NOTABUG. > You can close as "NOTABUG" only if you say "You used texlive on top of F17? > Your problem!". That would be valid, but please say so if you think so. Sorry, I should have been more clear. As I indicated above, the bug has been in fact resolved (not worked around) by disabling the unofficial repo and using the official one. Again, not a bug in Fedora itself and I stand by my previous decision. > If the bug has been resolved by removing the duplicate packages from the > texlive or F18 repo, please so and resolve correspondingly (UPSTREAM(*) > resp. ERRATA). Unfortunately removing packages from the unofficial repo won't do any good since they are already installed and removing them from Fedora wouldn't make any sense. Once more, NOTABUG is the correct solution.
Yup, please use the F18 repositories instead. The jnovy.fedorapeople.org repositories are now unmaintained as I go on developing texlive packaging in F18 directly. The proposed solution if you have some packages on your system is to remove them all: # rpm -qa | grep ^texlive | xargs rpm -e and then "yum install texlive". Then all the dependencies and upgrade paths should be preserved. Sorry for inconveniences.
*** Bug 926134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 926932 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 926930 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 926897 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 928791 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hm. I encounter this bug while still being on F17. I don't see how this is NOTABUG.
I updated the F17 repository to texlive-2012-19.20130317_r29408 so that you shouldn't see a broken update path from f17 to f18 from now on.
(In reply to comment #14) > Hm. I encounter this bug while still being on F17. I don't see how this is > NOTABUG. This is not a bug because the issue was caused by using unofficial repository for texlive. Please read comments above for more details.
*** Bug 949859 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 952416 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 983260 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 949846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***