# dnf update dnf* rpm* ... Complete!
# dnf repolist all #
# dnf config-manager --set-disabled fedora updates updates-testing #
# dnf repolist all #
:-(
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:15:59 -0400 Felix Miata mrmazda@earthlink.net wrote:
# dnf update dnf* rpm* ... Complete!
# dnf repolist all #
# dnf config-manager --set-disabled fedora updates updates-testing #
# dnf repolist all #
:-(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265336
Downgrade dnf manually for now.
kevin
Kevin Fenzi composed on 2015-09-23 16:28 (UTC-0600):
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:15:59 -0400
Felix Miata wrote:
# dnf update dnf* rpm* ... Complete!
# dnf repolist all #
# dnf config-manager --set-disabled fedora updates updates-testing #
# dnf repolist all #
:-(
Downgrade dnf manually for now.
Is the process as simple as dnf install --allowerasing dnf-1.1.1-2.fc23, or are there lurking gotchas? I fetched the 1.1.1-2 rpm, tried to use rpm --oldpackage, and got a complaint about missing python3-dnf.
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 18:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Kevin Fenzi composed on 2015-09-23 16:28 (UTC-0600):
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:15:59 -0400
Felix Miata wrote:
# dnf update dnf* rpm* ... Complete!
# dnf repolist all #
# dnf config-manager --set-disabled fedora updates updates- testing #
# dnf repolist all #
:-(
Downgrade dnf manually for now.
Is the process as simple as dnf install --allowerasing dnf-1.1.1- 2.fc23, or are there lurking gotchas?
Yes, the lurking gotcha being 'dnf doesn't work' :)
I fetched the 1.1.1-2 rpm, tried to use rpm --oldpackage, and got a complaint about missing python3-dnf.
Welcome back to 1996 ;) Yes, if you need to use rpm, you'll have to make sure all the dnf subpackages are in the same rpm transaction.
If you have yum-deprecated installed you should be able to downgrade dnf with that, I think.
On 09/23/2015 04:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 18:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Kevin Fenzi composed on 2015-09-23 16:28 (UTC-0600):
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:15:59 -0400
Felix Miata wrote:
# dnf update dnf* rpm* ... Complete!
# dnf repolist all #
# dnf config-manager --set-disabled fedora updates updates- testing #
# dnf repolist all #
:-(
Downgrade dnf manually for now.
Is the process as simple as dnf install --allowerasing dnf-1.1.1- 2.fc23, or are there lurking gotchas?
Yes, the lurking gotcha being 'dnf doesn't work' :)
I fetched the 1.1.1-2 rpm, tried to use rpm --oldpackage, and got a complaint about missing python3-dnf.
Welcome back to 1996 ;) Yes, if you need to use rpm, you'll have to make sure all the dnf subpackages are in the same rpm transaction.
If you have yum-deprecated installed you should be able to downgrade dnf with that, I think.
You can use dnf to downgrade dnf using local rpms, but you need several (dnf, dnf-conf, python3-dnf, etc.).
Orion Poplawski composed on 2015-09-23 17:00 (UTC-0600):
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 18:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Kevin Fenzi composed on 2015-09-23 16:28 (UTC-0600):
Downgrade dnf manually for now.
Is the process as simple as dnf install --allowerasing dnf-1.1.1-2.fc23, or are there lurking gotchas?
Yes, the lurking gotcha being 'dnf doesn't work' :)
I fetched the 1.1.1-2 rpm, tried to use rpm --oldpackage, and got a complaint about missing python3-dnf.
Welcome back to 1996 ;) Yes, if you need to use rpm, you'll have to make sure all the dnf subpackages are in the same rpm transaction.
Success this way....
If you have yum-deprecated installed you should be able to downgrade dnf with that, I think.
You can use dnf to downgrade dnf using local rpms, but you need several (dnf, dnf-conf, python3-dnf, etc.).
Tried this first, but it only claimed to work. 6 packages. dnf dnf-conf dnf-plugins-core dnf-yum python3-dnf python3-dnf-plugins-core
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
[…]
Yes, the lurking gotcha being 'dnf doesn't work' :)
Looks like, without explicit action, dnf will never work again as a way of upgrading packages: after each check-update, there is still nothing to upgrade, which after 24 hours is unheard of!
[…]
If you have yum-deprecated installed you should be able to downgrade dnf with that, I think.
Given the cavalier way dnf is updated to breaking point, yum-deprecated should be an integral part of the toolkit for everyone using Fedora Rawhide.
I used yum-deprecated to update all the packages dnf didn't realise needed to be updated. Sadly none of them was dnf.
The bug report claims an update to dnf is in the repository, should it have been part of the update?
On 25.09.2015 09:11, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 15:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
[…]
Yes, the lurking gotcha being 'dnf doesn't work' :)
Looks like, without explicit action, dnf will never work again as a way of upgrading packages: after each check-update, there is still nothing to upgrade, which after 24 hours is unheard of!
[…]
If you have yum-deprecated installed you should be able to downgrade dnf with that, I think.
Given the cavalier way dnf is updated to breaking point, yum-deprecated should be an integral part of the toolkit for everyone using Fedora Rawhide.
I used yum-deprecated to update all the packages dnf didn't realise needed to be updated. Sadly none of them was dnf.
The bug report claims an update to dnf is in the repository, should it have been part of the update?
Did you try http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=687661 (dnf-1.1.2-3.fc23)?
Kind regards
Joachim Backes
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 11:16 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
[…]
Did you try http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=687661 (dnf-1.1.2-3.fc23)?
I hadn't, but I just did a "yum-deprecated update" then "yum-deprecated update" and I got:
dnf.noarch 0:1.1.2-3.fc24
and it's dependencies, which I believe is the putative upgrade that works. Certainly "dnf list kernel" works again.
Moral of this story: dnf test suite is sub-standard and the CI and upload policy is in need of some adjustment – although Fedora Rawhide is "on the edge" and "seat of the pants" dnf is the single most important bit, and so the tests and CI should reflect this.
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 18:53 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 11:16 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
[…]
Did you try http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=687661 (dnf-1.1.2-3.fc23)?
I hadn't, but I just did a "yum-deprecated update" then "yum- deprecated update" and I got:
dnf.noarch 0:1.1.2-3.fc24
and it's dependencies, which I believe is the putative upgrade that works. Certainly "dnf list kernel" works again.
Moral of this story: dnf test suite is sub-standard and the CI and upload policy is in need of some adjustment
So far as I can see, no tests were actually run on this commit. Here's the PR for it:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/352
compare to a PR where tests were run:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/360
it seems that they don't run tests automatically on PR submission, don't know why not.
The package does have a %check which runs 'make test' though, so if the tests were going to catch this, they should have caught it there. However, it seems the tests indeed don't cover the problem here. The 'make test' output is identical between -2 and -3:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/1.1.2/2.fc24/data/logs/noar... https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/1.1.2/3.fc24/data/logs/noar...
in both cases it seems 545 tests pass for python 2, 543 pass and 2 are skipped for python 3.
– although Fedora Rawhide is "on the edge" and "seat of the pants" dnf is the single most important bit, and so the tests and CI should reflect this.
Certainly it's always good to keep improving the test suites, though I find it difficult to assume that any failure of a test to catch a bug means the tests are 'sub-standard'. Testing is hard, and nobody's perfect.
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 13:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
[…] Even though the tests may not have caught this problem it does seem a pity that the tests are not run on every commit or relatively closely timed group of commits.
[…]
Maybe it would be a good move for the dnf team to reflect on this recent episode and see if there are some tests that can be put in place to try and avoid a recurrence. There may not be, but it would be good if there were.
[…]
Certainly it's always good to keep improving the test suites, though I find it difficult to assume that any failure of a test to catch a bug means the tests are 'sub-standard'. Testing is hard, and nobody's perfect.
Very true. I perhaps got a wee bit over aggressive in phrasing. Also Rawhide users are effectively the user QA team so must expect the occasional cock up. Just now I cannot get a graphical login, only terminal ones, but this sort of thing is to be expected from time to time. dnf though holds a special place and so there is justification for much more emphasis on workingness before being released to the repository.