Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-19 Thread Ian Pilcher 

On 09/19/2016 03:52 AM, Honza Silhan wrote:

That's why I requested the debugdata so we know exact dependencies and
your system state where you can reproduce the problem ;). It shows
updating + skipped section together and  should show all packages that
could be updated (like output of check-upgrade).


I was going to file a bug with the requested data, then I read this:

  Note: these bugs will have default priority set to low as it's in 95%
  not a DNF bug and wastes only time of DNF developers.

--

Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com
 "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" 

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-19 Thread Honza Silhan 
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Ian Pilcher  wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 01:28 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>>
>> On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which
>>> this output makes sense.
>>>
>> I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it
>> drops them from the attempt.
>
>
> But why is it trying to include them in the first place?  There are no
> older versions of those packages installed, and they're not dependencies
> of the packages that are being updated.

That's why I requested the debugdata so we know exact dependencies and
your system state where you can reproduce the problem ;). It shows
updating + skipped section together and  should show all packages that
could be updated (like output of check-upgrade).


Honza
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-14 Thread Ian Pilcher 

On 09/14/2016 01:28 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which
this output makes sense.


I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it
drops them from the attempt.


But why is it trying to include them in the first place?  There are no
older versions of those packages installed, and they're not dependencies
of the packages that are being updated.

--

Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com
 "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" 

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-14 Thread Honza Silhan 
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Samuel Sieb  wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which
>> this output makes sense.
>>
> I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it
> drops them from the attempt.

"--best" should always pull them in the highest version.

It seems more like bug in DNF if the upgrade set is the same with
switches and without. Can you please report the bug and attach the
debugdata [1] for transaction with "--best --allowerasing" and without
them?

Thanks.
Honza

[1] 
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/wiki/Bug-Reporting#dependency-resolution-problem
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-14 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 09/14/2016 10:40 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which
this output makes sense.

I would assume that means dnf can't find any way to resolve those, so it 
drops them from the attempt.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-14 Thread Ian Pilcher 

On 09/14/2016 03:51 AM, Honza Silhan wrote:

please try what Samuel suggests (add "--best --allowerasing"). It
should pull in these packages but will remove/downgrade some packages
currently on your system. (proceed only if you want to)


After updating a bunch of unrelated packages, to simplify the output,
here is what I am seeing:

[pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo dnf update
Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:42 ago on Wed Sep 14 12:21:12 2016.
Dependencies resolved.

 Package  Arch Version 
Repository Size


Upgrading:
 gnupgx86_64   1.4.21-1.fc23 
updates   1.3 M
 gnupg2   x86_64   2.1.13-2.fc23 
updates   1.9 M
 gnutls   x86_64   3.4.15-1.fc23 
updates   663 k
 gnutls-dane  x86_64   3.4.15-1.fc23 
updates39 k
 gnutls-utils x86_64   3.4.15-1.fc23 
updates   267 k
 libguestfs   x86_64   1:1.32.10-1.fc23 
updates   1.9 M
 libguestfs-tools-c   x86_64   1:1.32.10-1.fc23 
updates   3.4 M

Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
 gnupg2-smime x86_64   2.1.13-2.fc23 
updates   406 k
 libguestfs-xfs   x86_64   1:1.32.10-1.fc23 
updates19 k
 pinentry x86_64   0.9.6-4.fc23 
updates81 k
 trousers x86_64   0.3.13-5.fc23 
fedora151 k
 trousers-lib x86_64   0.3.13-5.fc23 
fedora158 k


Transaction Summary

Upgrade  7 Packages
Skip 5 Packages

Total download size: 9.4 M
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.
[pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo dnf update --best --allowerasing
Last metadata expiration check: 0:14:57 ago on Wed Sep 14 12:21:12 2016.
Dependencies resolved.

 Package  Arch Version 
Repository Size


Upgrading:
 gnupgx86_64   1.4.21-1.fc23 
updates   1.3 M
 gnupg2   x86_64   2.1.13-2.fc23 
updates   1.9 M
 gnutls   x86_64   3.4.15-1.fc23 
updates   663 k
 gnutls-dane  x86_64   3.4.15-1.fc23 
updates39 k
 gnutls-utils x86_64   3.4.15-1.fc23 
updates   267 k
 libguestfs   x86_64   1:1.32.10-1.fc23 
updates   1.9 M
 libguestfs-tools-c   x86_64   1:1.32.10-1.fc23 
updates   3.4 M


Transaction Summary

Upgrade  7 Packages

Total download size: 9.4 M
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I cannot come up with a scenario in which
this output makes sense.

--

Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com
 "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" 

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-14 Thread Honza Silhan 
Hi,

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Samuel Sieb  wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 06:33 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
>>
>> The odd thing is that none of the "problematic" packages --
>> gnupg2-smime, libguestfs-xfs, pinentry -- are installed.

the same it's written in summary that these package will be skipped
(not upgraded). There are probably some conflicts between packages on
your system or missing dependencies of not upgraded packages.

>> I have install_weak_deps=false in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, so it shouldn't be
>> trying to install weak dependencies.

It has nothing to do with weak deps.

>> Anyone know what the heck DNF is trying to do?
>>
> Have you tried to add those options and see what dnf would try to do in that
> case?

please try what Samuel suggests (add "--best --allowerasing"). It
should pull in these packages but will remove/downgrade some packages
currently on your system. (proceed only if you want to)


Honza
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Odd DNF output

2016-09-13 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 09/13/2016 06:33 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:

The odd thing is that none of the "problematic" packages --
gnupg2-smime, libguestfs-xfs, pinentry -- are installed.

I have install_weak_deps=false in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf, so it shouldn't be
trying to install weak dependencies.

Anyone know what the heck DNF is trying to do?

Have you tried to add those options and see what dnf would try to do in 
that case?

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Odd DNF output

2016-09-13 Thread Ian Pilcher 

I've been seing this for several days now:

[pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo dnf update
Last metadata expiration check: 1:27:54 ago on Tue Sep 13 19:00:42 2016.
Dependencies resolved.
==
 Package  Arch 
Version  Repository Size

==
Installing:
 fpc-srpm-macros  noarch 
1.0-1.fc23   updates   7.8 k

Upgrading:
 autocorr-en  noarch 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   205 k
 curl x86_64 
7.43.0-9.fc23updates   285 k
 gnupg2   x86_64 
2.1.13-2.fc23updates   1.9 M
 google-chrome-stable x86_64 
53.0.2785.101-1  google-chrome  47 M
 libcdio  x86_64 
0.93-8.fc23  updates   242 k
 libcurl  x86_64 
7.43.0-9.fc23updates   257 k
 libgcryptx86_64 
1.6.6-1.fc23 updates   377 k
 libguestfs   x86_64 
1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates   1.9 M
 libguestfs-tools-c   x86_64 
1:1.32.10-1.fc23 updates   3.4 M
 libksba  x86_64 
1.3.5-1.fc23 updates   129 k
 libmateweather   x86_64 
1.14.2-1.fc23updates71 k
 libmateweather-data  noarch 
1.14.2-1.fc23updates   3.4 M
 libreoffice-calc x86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   8.6 M
 libreoffice-core x86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates74 M
 libreoffice-draw x86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   684 k
 libreoffice-graphicfilterx86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   451 k
 libreoffice-impress  x86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   1.3 M
 libreoffice-opensymbol-fonts noarch 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   247 k
 libreoffice-pdfimportx86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   281 k
 libreoffice-pyunox86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   518 k
 libreoffice-ure  x86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   2.5 M
 libreoffice-writer   x86_64 
1:5.0.6.2-10.fc23updates   4.3 M
 net-snmp-libsx86_64 
1:5.7.3-13.fc23  updates   788 k
 nss  x86_64 
3.26.0-1.0.fc23  updates   849 k
 nss-softokn  x86_64 
3.26.0-1.0.fc23  updates   383 k
 nss-softokn-freebl   x86_64 
3.26.0-1.0.fc23  updates   222 k
 nss-sysinit  x86_64 
3.26.0-1.0.fc23  updates58 k
 nss-toolsx86_64 
3.26.0-1.0.fc23  updates   496 k
 nss-util x86_64 
3.26.0-1.0.fc23  updates83 k
 perl-Module-CoreList noarch 
1:5.20160820-1.fc23  updates77 k
 python   x86_64 
2.7.11-10.fc23   updates96 k
 python-devel x86_64 
2.7.11-10.fc23   updates   399 k
 python-libs  x86_64 
2.7.11-10.fc23   updates   5.8 M
 python3-decoratornoarch 
4.0.10-3.fc23