Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clearer error message in caseof layered package conflict #1325

Closed
mscherer opened this issue Apr 4, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Clearer error message in caseof layered package conflict #1325

mscherer opened this issue Apr 4, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@mscherer
Copy link
Contributor

mscherer commented Apr 4, 2018

So today on irc, someone came to ask about this:

10:55:44| > I have git as a layered package. When trying to rpm-ostree upgrade I receive "Resolving dependencies... Forbidden base package replacements: git-core 2.16.2-1.fc28 -> 2.17.0-1.fc28 (updates-testing) failed error: Some base packages would be replaced" Is this an issue I should report somewhere?
10:56:50| > Btw, FAW Version: 28.20180402.n.0

Host system details
FAW Version: 28.20180402.n.0

layered package git (among others)

Expected vs actual behavior

# rpm-ostree update
=> the error message we have seen

Expected:

I think there is several possible solutions.

First, adding a clearer error message:

"If you have layered package, maybe try to remove them".

Second, maybe a better workflow. rpm-ostree see the rpms that are in conflict, so it could just ask to remove them, and then continue as before. This seems the best solution, but not as easy as the first. There is also the question of unattended and default behavior, especially

Steps to reproduce it

Install FAW in the specificed version, install git, and try to upgrade

Would you like to work on the issue?

No, I do not have time, sorry.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

Dup of #415 and will be solved with #1081

@mscherer
Copy link
Contributor Author

mscherer commented Apr 4, 2018

In the mean time, would just a change of the error message be a good enough workaround ? That's easy and kinda risk-free, and depending on when the PR land, could reduce a bit the friction for people trying FAW ?

@dustymabe
Copy link
Member

Dup of #415 and will be solved with #1081

As discussed before #1081 by itself doesn't fix these issues.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Member

As discussed before #1081 by itself doesn't fix these issues.

For FAW today it does right? And again in a rojig world we need a history-preserving repository which really implies that things are synchronized anyways.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants