On 3 Nov 2024 at 19:20, Jeffrey Walton wrote: Send reply to: noloader@xxxxxxxxx From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx> Date sent: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:20:40 -0500 Subject: Re: OT: Fedora 40 to 41 update - Strange WINEHQ issue. To: mikes@xxxxxxxx, Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 7:13 PM Michael D. Setzer II via users > <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Did an upgrade from Fedora 40 to 41 and everything went well > > except for WINEHQ? > > The Fedora 40 had the 9.20 version installed, but after the upgrade > > the WINEHQ (winehq-devel) was changed to 9.17?? > > > > So, not clear why that happened. Believe is mentioned 8 packages > > needed downgrading, but didn't note what they were. Didn't use the > > alloweasing or other options. > > > > After the upgrade running dnf upgrade comes out with this. > > Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package > > wine-devel-1:9.17-1.1.x86_64 > > - nothing provides libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) > > needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavformat.so.60()(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) > > needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavutil.so.58()(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > Problem 2: package winehq-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > requires wine-devel = 1:9.20-1.1, but none of the providers can be > > installed > > - cannot install the best update candidate for package > > winehq-devel-1:9.17-1.1.x86_64 > > - nothing provides libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) > > needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavformat.so.60()(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) > > needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavutil.so.58()(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > - nothing provides libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) needed by > > wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ > > > > Package Arch Version > > Repository Size > > Skipping packages with broken dependencies: > > wine-devel x86_64 1:9.20-1.1 > > WineHQ 1.3 GiB > > winehq-devel x86_64 1:9.20-1.1 > > WineHQ 62.1 KiB > > > > Nothing to do. > > > > Note: winehq does not yet have a Fedora 41 repo. Only shows > > support for 39 and 40 on main page, but does have older repo > > directories going back to 25? > > > > So, not sure if this means Fedora Repos don't have these packages, > > or if they are needed in the winehq or other repos for 41?? > > The wine runs fine, but just convert from 9.20 to 9.17? > > Maybe related: <https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?t=39616>. From > the comment by dimesio : > > Installing packages built for Fedora 40 into Fedora 41 is not > supported. In this particular case, the reason dnf won't install it is > because the Fedora 41 distro repository has a different version of the > libav* dependencies than 40. That problem should disappear when we > build packages for Fedora 41 because they will be built in Fedora 41. > > As for the reference to 9.17, that appears to be a reference to the > version you already have installed on your system. Are you sure that's > not the distro Wine package, installed when you upgraded your OS? > > Jeff Thanks for reply. I had posted that on the winehq forum. Issue is that the machine had the 9.20 version installed on system before the upgrade. So it had the 9.20 version, but somehow during the upgrade from 40 to 41, it downgraded the winehq-devel and wine-devel to 9.17? So, the version that was installed was 9.20 not the 9.17, so can only assume that the dnf upgrade for some reason downgraded the 9.20 to 9.17? Guess will just have to wait till they create a Fedora 41 winehq repo. Will hold off upgrading my other 6 Fedora 40 machines. +------------------------------------------------------------+ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mikes@xxxxxxxx mailto:msetzerii@xxxxxxxxx mailto:msetzerii@xxxxxxx Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ +------------------------------------------------------------+ -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
