Dne 24.9.2018 v 17:17 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On 09/24/2018 03:24 AM, M A Young wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Petr Šabata wrote: >> >>> >>> Definitely an error. >>> >>> Could be another case of >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629396, but it >>> should have been fixed last week. Is your repo current? >>> Could you check for the presence of modular repodata (the >>> *modules.yaml.gz) file. >> >> the dnf upgrade problem looks to me like >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616118 > > > It's actually fallout from https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7827 > > Basically we are building flatpaks from modules, but then the modules > are getting into the normal module stream. They shouldn't and we need to > setup some different tagging for them to avoid it. I do not believe this is the case. I do not have installed bubblewrap from module. I have bubblewrap from F29. The problem is that bubblewrap-0.3.0-2.module_2123+73a9ef6f.x86_64 > bubblewrap-0.3.0-2.fc29.x86_64 And DNF put the module version into sack, despite the fact that I have all modules disabled. I thin that BZ 1616118 correctly describe it. Miroslav
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
