Yes, after system installed on hard drive the same error. But after upgrading boost* error is gone and packages normal installed. пт, 15 мая 2020 г. в 00:33, Vascom <vascom2@xxxxxxxxx>: > > I just could reproduce it. > > Steps: > 1. Run KDE spin F32 in virt-manager. > 2. dnf install toolnix > > Result: > > mkvtoolnix x86_64 46.0.0-1.fc32 updates 5.2 M > Installing dependencies: > boost169-filesystem x86_64 1.69.0-6.fc32 fedora 53 k > boost169-system x86_64 1.69.0-6.fc32 fedora 12 k > fmt x86_64 6.2.1-1.fc32 updates 115 k > libebml x86_64 1.3.10-2.fc32 fedora 87 k > libmatroska x86_64 1.5.2-2.fc32 fedora 178 k > pugixml x86_64 1.10-2.fc32 fedora 100 k > > ... > Error: Transaction test error: > file /usr/lib64/libboost_system.so.1.69.0 from install of > boost169-system-1.69.0-6.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file from package > boost-system-1.69.0-15.fc32.x86_64 > > So I think after installation result will be the same. May be need > first dnf upgrade. > > пт, 15 мая 2020 г. в 00:10, Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx>: > > > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 20:08:07 -0000 > > "Denis Arnaud" <denis.arnaud_fedora@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > No one try to install it now. New boost will be in F33 only. > > > > > > > > But if boost not installed in system and user want install for > > > > example libreoffice he will get this error and can't install any > > > > package requires boost. > > > > > > > > boost169 must be removed from F32 repos at all. > > > > > > > > чт, 14 мая 2020 г. в 22:19, Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>: > > > > > > > > > > On 5/14/20 10:49 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > > > > The boost169 compatibility package conflicts with the regular > > > > > > boost on Fedora 32. Both packages provides the same libraries. > > > > > > > > > > > > Error: Transaction test error: > > > > > > file /usr/lib64/libboost_system.so.1.69.0 from install of > > > > > > boost169-system-1.69.0-6.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file from > > > > > > package boost-system-1.69.0-15.fc32.x86_64 > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of having a compatibility package for the same > > > > > version as the regular one? I'm guessing that means they're in > > > > > the process of preparing a new release, but why are you trying to > > > > > install it now? _______________________________________________ > > > > > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > > > > devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > No one try to install it now. New boost will be in F33 only. > > > > > > > > But if boost not installed in system and user want install for > > > > example libreoffice he will get this error and can't install any > > > > package requires boost. > > > > > > > > boost169 must be removed from F32 repos at all. > > > > > > > > чт, 14 мая 2020 г. в 22:19, Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>: > > > > > > > > > > On 5/14/20 10:49 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > > > > The boost169 compatibility package conflicts with the regular > > > > > > boost on Fedora 32. Both packages provides the same libraries. > > > > > > > > > > > > Error: Transaction test error: > > > > > > file /usr/lib64/libboost_system.so.1.69.0 from install of > > > > > > boost169-system-1.69.0-6.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file from > > > > > > package boost-system-1.69.0-15.fc32.x86_64 > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of having a compatibility package for the same > > > > > version as the regular one? I'm guessing that means they're in > > > > > the process of preparing a new release, but why are you trying to > > > > > install it now? _______________________________________________ > > > > > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > > > > devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Yes, boost169 should never have ended up in Fedora 32 in the first > > > place (blame on me, sorry). The thing is that we can no longer block > > > it: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9455 > > > > I think an update of fedora-obsolete-packages could "virtually" remove > > boost169, without touching boost itself. > > > > > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
