DevHeads.net

F24 broken dependencies

Currently, it's not possible to update from F23 to F24 because of
broken dependencies.

# dnf update --releasever=24 --best --allowerasing

Error: package firebird-libfbembed-2.5.5.26952.0-2.fc23.x86_64
requires libicuuc.so.54()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed.
package firefox-45.0.1-1.fc23.x86_64 requires libvpx.so.2()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed.
package gnome-abrt-1.2.2-1.fc23.x86_64 requires python(abi) = 3.4, but
none of the providers can be installed.
package webkitgtk3-2.4.10-1.fc23.x86_64 requires
libwebp.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.
package python3-dnf-1.1.7-2.fc23.noarch requires python(abi) = 3.4,
but none of the providers can be installed.
package dnf-1.1.7-2.fc23.noarch requires python3-dnf = 1.1.7-2.fc23,
but none of the providers can be installed.
package dnf-yum-1.1.7-2.fc23.noarch requires dnf = 1.1.7-2.fc23, but
none of the providers can be installed.
package python3-dnf-1.1.7-2.fc23.noarch requires python(abi) = 3.4,
but none of the providers can be installed

# dnf update --releasever=24
...
Install 20 Packages
Upgrade 1256 Packages
Skip 265 Packages
...
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/lib64/libpython3.so from install of
system-python-libs-3.5.1-7.fc24.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package python3-libs-3.4.3-5.fc23.x86_64
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstopus.so from install of
gstreamer1-plugins-base-1.7.90-2.fc24.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.6.3-3.fc23.x86_64

Comments

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By =?utf-8?q?Jos=C... at 03/22/2016 - 07:46

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:13:47 PM WET Jan Synacek wrote:
Does it helps if instead of update/upgrade you use distro-sync?

I have updated last week using the dnf system-upgrade method and it worked.

The only issue was with pydot -> python2-pydot that does not work. That is in
Fedora 24 python2-pydot provides the same files/functionality of pydot in
Fedora 23 but it does not obsolete it.

This is an example of where dfn swap would be nice to have. :-)

Regards,

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Jan Synacek at 03/22/2016 - 08:16

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46 PM, José Matos < ... at fc dot up.pt> wrote:
Yes, that performs the update without complaining. Why is that?

I have updated too and it also worked. But now it seems to be broken.

Cheers,

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Adam Williamson at 03/22/2016 - 10:44

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 13:16 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote:
How do you mean?

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Stephen Gallagher at 03/22/2016 - 08:27

On 03/22/2016 08:16 AM, Jan Synacek wrote:
That's designed to allow package downgrades when necessary to avoid broken deps.

I'd also point out that the supported mechanism for upgrading from F23 to F24 is:

# dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=24
# dnf system-upgrade reboot

This will resolve the packages, download them ahead of time and then reboot to
apply them.

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Michael Catanzaro at 03/22/2016 - 13:42

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 08:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Just a small note to add: for Workstation, the expected way to upgrade
beginning with F23->F24 will be GNOME Software. Hopefully dnf works
too, but we don't want to recommend using the command line to users.

Michael

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Colin Walters at 03/22/2016 - 11:31

That's one of them - there are two. I have extended:
<a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading" title="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading</a>
to also cover rpm-ostree managed systems such as the Fedora Atomic Host.

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Chris Murphy at 03/22/2016 - 12:52

I don't see this change. Did it get saved and not submitted?

Chris Murphy

Re: F24 broken dependencies

By Matthew Miller at 03/22/2016 - 08:15

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:46:18AM +0000, José Matos wrote:
I've reopened <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110780" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110780">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110780</a>