In system-upgrade.pv there is a note in the run_upgrade function:
# NOTE: We *assume* that depsolving here will yield the same
# transaction as it did during the download, but we aren't doing
# anything to *ensure* that; if the metadata changed, or if depsolving
# is non-deterministic in some way, we could end up with a different
# transaction and then the upgrade will fail due to missing packages.
#
# One way to *guarantee* that we have the same transaction would be
# to save & restore the Transaction object, but there's no documented
# way to save a Transaction to disk.
#
# So far, though, the above assumption seems to hold. So... onward!
So it seems Alan and myself have got some rare dependency condition.
Still need to find out what exactly triggers it and how to solve it.
Will open a bug tomorrow, if nobody beats me to it.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, 3. October 2019 19:07, Rodger Etz <reb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bugzilla Bug 1644439 looks identical, but was not investigated further as it seems the issue did not appear anymore and dnf has changed since reported.
>
> This is what I have found so far.
>
> dnf system-upgrade -v reboot fails with the following errors:
>
> 2019-10-03T11:28:47Z INFO Downloading Packages:
> 2019-10-03T11:28:51Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/updates-testing-9640951d8a5b54c9/packages/plasma-integration-5.16.5
> -2.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:28:51Z CRITICAL Package "plasma-integration-5.16.5-2.fc31.x86_64" from repository "updates-testing" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:28:53Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/LabPlot-2.5.0-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:28:53Z CRITICAL Package "LabPlot-2.5.0-5.fc31.x86_64" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:28:54Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/cantor-19.04.3-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:28:54Z CRITICAL Package "cantor-19.04.3-2.fc31.x86_64" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:28:54Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/cantor-libs-19.04.3-2.fc31.x86_64.
> rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:28:54Z CRITICAL Package "cantor-libs-19.04.3-2.fc31.x86_64" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-desktop-5.16.4-1.fc31.x86_6
> 4.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Package "plasma-desktop-5.16.4-1.fc31.x86_64" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-lookandfeel-fedora-5.16.4-1
> .fc31.noarch.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Package "plasma-lookandfeel-fedora-5.16.4-1.fc31.noarch" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-workspace-5.16.4-1.fc31.x86
> _64.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Package "plasma-workspace-5.16.4-1.fc31.x86_64" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Error opening file for checksum: /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/sddm-breeze-5.16.4-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
> 2019-10-03T11:29:01Z CRITICAL Package "sddm-breeze-5.16.4-1.fc31.noarch" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> 2019-10-03T11:29:03Z DDEBUG Cleaning up.
> 2019-10-03T11:29:03Z SUBDEBUG
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 65, in main
> return _main(base, args, cli_class, option_parser_class)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 98, in _main
> return cli_run(cli, base)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 122, in cli_run
> ret = resolving(cli, base)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/main.py", line 166, in resolving
> base.do_transaction(display=displays)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/cli/cli.py", line 224, in do_transaction
> self.download_packages(install_pkgs, self.output.progress, total_cb)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 1133, in download_packages
> remote_pkgs, local_repository_pkgs = self._select_remote_pkgs(pkglist)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/base.py", line 2474, in _select_remote_pkgs
> _('Some packages have invalid cache, but cannot be downloaded due to '
> dnf.exceptions.Error: Some packages have invalid cache, but cannot be downloaded due to "--cacheonly" option
> 2019-10-03T11:29:03Z CRITICAL Error: Some packages have invalid cache, but cannot be downloaded due to "--cacheonly" option
>
> As someone already suspected, the rpms were not downloaded and therefore produces the above error.
>
> They are not downloaded because dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --allowerasing --releasever=31 does not list them as to be installed.
>
> It only lists older versions to be removed:
>
> Removing dependent packages:
> ....
> plasma-desktop 5.15.5-1.fc30
> sddm-breeze 5.15.5-1.fc30
> plasma-workspace 5.15.5-1.fc30
> plasma-lookandfeel-fedora 5.15.5-1.fc30
> cantor-libs 18.12.3-1.fc30
> cantor 18.12.3-1.fc30
> LibPlot 2.5.0-3.fc30
> .....
>
> But no new versions to be installed.
>
> So there seems to be a mismatch between what dependencies --download resolves and what gets resolved after system-upgrade reboot.
>
> Also interesting that Alan's failed packages are almost the same as mine. So may be it is related to some wrongly defined dependencies for them.
>
> Before I dive deeper into what system-upgrade is exactly doing, is there a hint where to check next?
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, 3. October 2019 19:04, Alan alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 14:34 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/2/19 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oct 02 11:23:19 daimajin dnf[1390]: Error opening file for
> > > > checksum:
> > > > /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/fedora-
> > > > 3589ee8a7ee1691d/packages/plasma-
> > > > desktop-5.16.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Oct 02 11:23:19 daimajin dnf[1390]: Package "plasma-desktop-5.16.4-
> > > > 1.fc31.x86_64" from repository "fedora" has incorrect checksum
> > >
> > > That's weird, can you check if those files actually exist?
> >
> > They don't!
> > I reran it after clearing all the packages and upgrade packages and
> > data and reran it and got the same results. It passes all the
> > transaction tests. Everything claims to be OK for the upgrade, but
> > those files don't exists for some unknown reason.
> > Could it be some corruption in the rpm database?
> > test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe send an email to test-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/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-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/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
