Bug 30073 - dnf fail updating, while drakrpm-update succeed, when dnf doesn't have all needed repositories enabled, but urpmi does.
Summary: dnf fail updating, while drakrpm-update succeed, when dnf doesn't have all ne...
Status: RESOLVED OLD
Alias: None
Product: Mageia
Classification: Unclassified
Component: RPM Packages (show other bugs)
Version: 8
Hardware: All Linux
Priority: Normal normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mageia Bug Squad
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: NEEDINFO
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2022-02-20 10:58 CET by Radek Raczkowski
Modified: 2022-04-22 13:15 CEST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Source RPM: dnf-4.6.0-1.mga8.src.rpm
CVE:
Status comment:


Attachments

Description Radek Raczkowski 2022-02-20 10:58:28 CET
Description of problem:
When I do sudo dnf up I get:

 Problem 1: package libdri-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires mesa = 21.3.4, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both mesa-21.3.6-2.mga8.x86_64 and mesa-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package mesa-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - problem with installed package libdri-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586
 Problem 2: package libdri-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires mesa = 21.3.4, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both mesa-21.3.6-2.mga8.x86_64 and mesa-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - package lib64dri-drivers-21.3.6-2.mga8.x86_64 requires mesa = 21.3.6, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libmesagl1-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires libdri-drivers >= 21.3.4-1.mga8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package lib64dri-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - problem with installed package libmesagl1-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586
 Problem 3: package libdri-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires mesa = 21.3.4, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mesa-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64 requires lib64mesagl1 = 21.3.4-1.mga8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libmesagl1-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires libdri-drivers >= 21.3.4-1.mga8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both lib64mesagl1-21.3.6-2.mga8.x86_64 and lib64mesagl1-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - package libgl1-1.3.2-16.mga8.i586 requires libmesagl1 >= 20.1.4, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package lib64mesagl1-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - problem with installed package libgl1-1.3.2-16.mga8.i586
 Problem 4: package libdri-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires mesa = 21.3.4, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mesa-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64 requires lib64mesavulkan-drivers = 21.3.4-1.mga8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libmesagl1-21.3.4-1.mga8.i586 requires libdri-drivers >= 21.3.4-1.mga8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both lib64mesavulkan-drivers-21.3.6-2.mga8.x86_64 and lib64mesavulkan-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - package steam-1.0.0.68-2.mga8.nonfree.x86_64 requires libmesagl1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package lib64mesavulkan-drivers-21.3.4-1.mga8.x86_64
  - problem with installed package steam-1.0.0.68-2.mga8.nonfree.x86_64
=========================================================================================================
 Package                          Architecture    Version                  Repository               Size
=========================================================================================================
Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
 lib64mesagl1                     x86_64          21.3.6-2.mga8            updates-x86_64          178 k
 lib64mesavulkan-drivers          x86_64          21.3.6-2.mga8            updates-x86_64          5.6 M
 mesa                             x86_64          21.3.6-2.mga8            updates-x86_64           25 k
Skipping packages with broken dependencies:
 lib64dri-drivers                 x86_64          21.3.6-2.mga8            updates-x86_64           26 M

Transaction Summary
=========================================================================================================
Skip  4 Packages

Nothing to do.



Then I used Mageia Updater and it updated everything just fine. This is the second time I have this issue.
Radek Raczkowski 2022-02-20 10:58:36 CET

CC: (none) => rdkracz

Comment 1 sturmvogel 2022-02-20 11:26:39 CET
It looks like 32bit repos for dnf are not setup so dependencies can not be found

Enable the 32bit repos, because as example steam needs them.

https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Using_DNF
Comment 2 sturmvogel 2022-02-20 11:30:26 CET
Forget my last comment. There are other conflicts ongoing....
Comment 3 Morgan Leijström 2022-02-20 12:42:40 CET
One difference is that from command line you used dnf, but Mageia default updater is drakrpm-update.
They use different repo description files... are they not in sync, or other problem?
This is not my cup of tea.

Summary: I can't update system due to dependency problem from terminal but Mageia Updater doesn't seem to have a problem => dnf fail updating, while drakrpm-update succeed.
CC: (none) => fri

Comment 4 Nikolay Sabelnikov 2022-02-20 13:01:51 CET
Yesterday, I updated Yandex browser via dnf, the flight is normal. It is better to carry out updates from the main reps through urpm, and through dnf from third-party incompatible with urpm.

CC: (none) => 79625490833

Comment 5 Lewis Smith 2022-02-21 09:53:51 CET
Although some people say it is all right to mix Mageia rpm utilitites & DNF, the main opinion is not to mix them. They do some things differently. What Nikolay suggests above may be a good compromise.

CC'ing Neal for his opinion about Radek's problem.

Source RPM: (none) => dnf-4.6.0-1.mga8.src.rpm
CC: (none) => lewyssmith, ngompa13

Comment 6 Nikolay Sabelnikov 2022-02-21 11:19:52 CET
I will add that when I installed the package, of my own assembly, using dnf, he pulled the dependencies from the main reps well.
Comment 7 Morgan Leijström 2022-02-21 11:29:30 CET
When you set it up correctly it should work to use both.

One reason we do not recommend it generally is it is easy to make mistakes, i.e if user set up repos too differently (i.e with or wihtout 32 bit on 64 bit, tainted or not, backport or not etc may cause different deps or versions), urpmi use a skip list for what user say not to install, while I suppose dnf use other means, and it is possible to foul up orphan tracking.
Comment 8 Marja Van Waes 2022-03-10 18:10:08 CET
@ Radek

If you still have this problem, please give the output of
(in a konsole/terminal):

  dnf repolist

and of:

  urpmq --list-media active

If you no longer have this problem, you can close this report while telling whether you did anything to fix the problem

CC: (none) => marja11
Keywords: (none) => NEEDINFO
Summary: dnf fail updating, while drakrpm-update succeed. => dnf fail updating, while drakrpm-update succeed, when dnf doesn't have all needed repositories enabled, but urpmi does.

Comment 9 Marja Van Waes 2022-04-22 13:15:19 CEST
@ Radek

Closing as OLD because you didn't reply.

Feel free to add the requested information and reopen this report if the problem persists

Resolution: (none) => OLD
Status: NEW => RESOLVED


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.