-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 10:40 +0000, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > Recently, several users report problems with system upgrade due to > rich dependencies that are not supported by RPM in Fedora 25, and not > fully supported by RPM in Fedora 26 (statement 'with'). Rich > dependencies are allowed and supported from Fedora 26, but during the > System Upgrade from Fedora 25 the transaction is checked by RPM that > doesn't support rich dependencies, therefore the transaction check > performed by RPM fails. A similar situation can be experienced for > System Upgrade from Fedora 26 where RPM is unable to handle rich > dependency using "with" statement (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b > ug.cgi?id=1551543). In future we can expect that more and more users > will be affected by the problem due to increase of rich dependencies > in Fedora 26-28. I realize that there were similar issue discussed in > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproje > ct.org/thread/Q5LMMPVEORM76IOPGKYS4XJ6VZ2WLAAX/#7JWQ2TFDFYNCQFJBMOAQF > IPDP4XCYLVC, but it does not cover user point o > f view. > > Possible solution: > 1. Back-port support of "with" key word in rich dependencies into > Fedora 26 (solves only upgrades from 26 to 27, and 26 to 28.) This is no-go, there are more incompatible changes in RPM. > 2. Ban rich dependencies in Fedora 26, and 27, and in 28 only rich > deps using "with" statement (solves all issues) Thanks, no. > 3. Provide a copr repo with RPM for Fedora 25, and 26 that support > all rich dependencies (user unfriendly) Agree, this is not "official" way of doing system upgrades. > 4. Disable rich dependency check in RPM release for Fedora 26 (solves > only upgrades from 26 to 27, and 26 to 28.) I have proposed this to DNF team already, but nothing happened. And you forgot: 5. Teach DNF to use "target" DNF/RPM stack to perform upgrade (best and proper way). > The issue can be experienced in following system upgrade > combinations: 25 to 26, 25 to 27, 26 to 27, 26 to 28. > The list of Fedora 27 and 28 packages with incompatible rich deps - h > ttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552547 Once more, this issue is not only about rich dependencies: > The maximum supported header size was significantly raised in this release. This cannot be tracked with rpmlib() dependencies as that requires accessing the header, so attempting to access packages with larger than 32MB header will just abruptly fail with ALL older rpm versions. So if you use RPM 4.13 to install RPM 4.14-built package which happen to have such large header, RPM would simply crash. Solutions 1-4 are not sustainable, #5 is. - -- - -Igor Gnatenko -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqfxGoACgkQaVcUvRu8 X0zxaRAAkIrFRnMxIZNPNlJqNWRcNwuqbWODwgRfwEUUv2JDEb6tY5z5L/2faZI2 xOpMfQJhx+7qx49yudAS9TbIQsHla1ffQA8YWgH+jxmLARGVlciklcpuoY4DobAQ hbxbhewIyoK1xM72P/+XYUBu1yAhjsDEem3nZ/Fi/YJgIoJ0kABPgwf168LFQSjG nUIZ50989p8uT0q/gtdIAGQrhLfxjWZQIBIZF+ctrq2TQr3Ag9zJaocysJBXtyCo z0zFFN1mZuXHl+zpynGRK9/FmhlTVC/+83om3eM7HmqCv/xDcLdj+HU0NDYJJPJz nB4/HVs6HLhvkB3FPODjxEc7jmQ51JT4Pz+cZMXggOiXW9qVEEm0H8afbxjZcDje jZxuDfvNoD92uFG9iZOSPFLv3DfstcYNsGABu9lK+Ust/+++o6+a1XYgdvrd+8L+ dt9qANVyguZQYO0afFZ/gEjOwGoFQUk0AuGyMe30iVDUi203b5lQCebeN0rz8hE6 KtxKKEO23rD3hFG7WyVYUc8+ot2KYkG/WsS7JzlDTt5I8hlq7uJ2eWCnTpua/7ew Lz+lc8ZgHe9mkwboMZtGGbsRWesQBU6tzYcwu1XP7apvM4iA+gniGngf6QgeJrcr tEj90kl98tnE36CE1xszihBOtniqEKCq5kpR8a6MBekKZQX7HlM= =Xl8n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
