On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 10:33 +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>
> Problem 2: package ghc-data-array-byte-0.1.0.1-1.fc38.x86_64 from @System
> requires libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc9.2.6.so()(64bit), but none of the providers
> can be installed
> - ghc-array-0.5.4.0-133.fc38.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
> - problem with installed package ghc-data-array-byte-0.1.0.1-1.fc38.x86_64
>
> Looks like package got dropped in meantime.
Such packages ought to be obsoleted by something - if nothing else, by
fedora-obsolete-packages . You can file a bug or PR asking for it to be
added there.
>
> DNF5 managed to solve problems on it's own:
>
> Transaction Summary:
> Installing: 47 packages
> Upgrading: 3803 packages
> Replacing: 3841 packages
> Removing: 7 packages
> Downgrading: 28 packages
This is likely because it defaults to `--allowerasing` behaviour? This
is kinda a controversial topic. GNOME Software also does this, and I
don't *love* it as it can result in people being surprised by packages
having disappeared on upgrade. ('allowerasing' means, basically, if a
package like this is blocking the transaction, just remove it).
--
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @[email protected]
https://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
