Fix upgrade path for 3rd part repos using a52dec-libs instead of liba52
This update has been submitted for testing by kwizart.
This update has been pushed to testing.
DNF for this update does not manage to replace a52dec-0.7.4-21.fc25 from rpmfusion. Not for x86_64, and not for x86_64/i686 multilib either.
You've introduced a circular Requires/Obsoletes pair. a52dec requires liba52, which obsoletes a52dec.
Oh, there's also multiple Obsoletes tags for a52dec in different packages, and both cover -21.fc25. That won't work, since only either one would be chosen.
Also, since a52dec-0.7.4-21.fc25 contains libs and executables, letting liba52 replace it isn't correct. User would get only the lib, not the executables.
works for me
Please report a dedicated bug with dnf verbose output.
I mean that previous build "DID" obsolete properly from RPM Fusion.
This build is only intended for other less known repositories which where using -libs instead of liba52 as lib only sub-package.
Also please don't assume anything theoretical without also mentioning which dnf/libsolv version you are using. Some bugs fixed there might change how things behaved in this area.
Notice the topic on users@ list. Update problems with older a52dec updates affects various dist releases.
I've given you a clear test-case for F25 and pointed out several mistakes in your update. I don't have the time to provide you with many more details, if you are not willing to test your own updates painstakingly.
You cannot assume that any user has already applied a previous update. Your -26.fc25 update also failed to replace -21.fc25 correctly, flags a52dec as broken and removes it because of the obsoletes. The entire upgrade path for these updates is broken.
I'm sorry, I have no time either from non-report.
I don't reproduce either, please fix you libsolv/dnf
Impressive, Nicolas, how much you care about your package users and feedback from fellow Fedora contributors. Hopefuly you do understand that by pointing the finger at libsolv/dnf you've just closed the door completely and won't get any support or bugzilla ticket from me.
I do care about users report. you don't want to provide one.
Please anyone please report a proper bug report to help understand the problem. The user report is using a foreign 3rd part repo. Still there is a need to understand the issue.
Of course, users with update problems have got 3rd party packages installed. a52dec has not been offered by Fedora before! Those are the packages you try to handle in your %changelog, btw.
The fundamental problem is that you're replacing a52dec with liba52, replacing executables with only libraries. Whether the various package tools, such as DNF, show warnings or errors, is implementation dependent. All replace a52dec because of your Obsoletes tags and remove executables from users' installations accidentally.
That is reproducible by you, too, with pkcon or dnf or other tools, provided that you do start with the older package releases such as -21.fc25, regardless of whether single-arch or multilib. That doesn't matter.
The reason why dnf runs into broken deps or conflicts may be your circular Obsoletes as pointed out before. You can't update a52dec with a new releases, because the new a52dec requires liba52, which in turn obsoletes a52dec. No, the versions in the tags don't do what you possibly hope they would do. You lose a52dec and only get liba52.
Please really take a breath, and calm down.
I do need a proper report. My attempt to reproduce will not be equivalent than a real-user system, mainly because the a52dec.i686 will be explicitly installed by dnf, and that changes the libsolv dependency computation.
Current workaround is to use
yum-deprecated showing different behaviour is a start. Good. See bug 1439690 I've assigned to "dnf".
This update has been obsoleted by a52dec-0.7.4-28.fc25.
Please login to add feedback.
Confirm request to re-trigger tests.
Copyright © 2007-2023 Red Hat, Inc. and
bodhi-server 7.2.2 on
bodhi is Free Software.
if you have any problems. Read the documentation.