DevHeads.net

Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

On my Fedora 29-ish machine, I just tried:

# dnf update --best --releasever=30

However it fails with pages of errors which seem to be related to
modules. Is this supposed to work? It certainly worked fine in
previous Fedora releases.

Bonus question: Are "Problem 1" (etc) in each section of the error
message supposed to relate to each other in some way? Or is the
second list a new list of problems?

Rich.

Comments

Re: Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

By Peter Robinson at 03/04/2019 - 03:56

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:31 AM Richard W.M. Jones < ... at redhat dot com> wrote:
You're better off doing:

dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync

But it does have issues with modules atm so a work around is:

dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

This is documented in RHBZ: <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509</a>

Re: Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

By =?ISO-8859-2?Q?... at 03/04/2019 - 03:56

Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:30 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):

You mean this error:
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module stratis:1:20181215204600:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module standard-test-roles:3.0:3020190214144451:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
...

The dependency
module(platform:f30)
is virtual. There is no package which provides this. The dependency is put into an RPM transaction sack by DNF based on
PLATFORM_ID from *current* /etc/os-release

Miroslav

Re: Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

By Petr Sabata at 03/04/2019 - 04:00

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 08:56:26AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Indeed. I'm not sure whether we can reasonably support this
upgrade method, although suggestions welcome :|

The failure in this case isn't caused by modules, however; the
messages are informational.

P