[system-upgrade] Instructions needed in output in order to achieve the upgrade

[Ricky-Tigg]

Hello. While the latest stable version of Fedora Desktop edition is installed on a VM, I want to uprade it to the Rawhide branch. Previously to starting the upgrade process unwanted applications were removed by using Software from Gnome.

Commands executed in this order.

# dnf distro-sync
# dnf autoremove
# dnf upgrade --refresh

'--refresh' may be or may not be needed once more.

# dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=rawhide
Updating and loading repositories:
 RPM Fusion for Fedora rawhid 100% | 654.0   B/s |   2.5 KiB |  00m04s
 Fedora rawhide - x86_64      100% |   6.4 KiB/s |  19.8 KiB |  00m03s
 Fedora rawhide openh264 (Fro 100% | 442.0   B/s | 986.0   B |  00m02s
 Fedora rawhide - x86_64 - Up 100% |  12.2 KiB/s |  19.8 KiB |  00m02s
 Copr repo for PyCharm owned  100% |   2.8 KiB/s |   2.1 KiB |  00m01s
Repositories loaded.
Failed to resolve the transaction:
Packages for argument 'cryptsetup' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'firefox' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-boxes' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-calculator' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-system-monitor' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gvfs-fuse' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'simple-scan' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gvfs-afc' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-calendar' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-clocks' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-maps' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gnome-weather' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'loupe' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'libreoffice-calc' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'libreoffice-impress' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'libreoffice-graphicfilter' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'gstreamer1-plugin-openh264' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'dnsmasq' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'bzip2' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'cryptsetup' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'nmap-ncat' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'attr' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'nfs-utils' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'quota' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'bzip2' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'cryptsetup' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'rhythmbox' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'nmap-ncat' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'attr' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'nfs-utils' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'quota' available, but not installed.
Packages for argument 'unoconv' available, but not installed.
Problem: problem with installed package
  - package libheif-1.20.1-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora requires libopenh264.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libheif-1.20.1-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates requires libopenh264.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with openh264 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes noopenh264 < 1:0 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with openh264 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes noopenh264 < 1:0 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates
  - libheif-1.19.8-1.fc42.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package

Since this state should not be definitive, the instructions necessary to establish a context favorable for upgrading should be printed as well as part of the output. However, no instructions are communicated to this effect, thus leaving the situation inextricable.

What instructions and advice should DNF5 communicate in such a context?

[ppisar]

If you have set --best option, then DNF5 prints an advise after the dependency failure:

You can try to add to command line:
  --no-best to not limit the transaction to the best candidates
  --allowerasing to allow removing of installed packages to resolve problems

I guess you overlooked those lines.

If you don't have --best in effect, DNF5 for me skips upgrading the package which cannot be upgraded after print the dependency errors:

Updating and loading repositories:
Repositories loaded.
Problem 1: package gstreamer1-plugin-openh264-1.26.5-4.fc44.x86_64 from updates requires libopenh264.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with openh264 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes noopenh264 < 1:0 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with openh264 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates-testing
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes noopenh264 < 1:0 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from updates-testing
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 conflicts with openh264 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package openh264-2.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64 obsoletes noopenh264 < 1:0 provided by noopenh264-2.6.0-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job
[...]
Skipping packages with conflicts:
 fedora-release                                   noarch 44-0.1                            updates           0.0   B
 fedora-release-common                            noarch 44-0.1                            updates          20.4 KiB
 fedora-release-identity-basic                    noarch 44-0.1                            updates         664.0   B
 fmf                                              noarch 1.7.0-3.fc43                      updates         295.7 KiB
 noopenh264                                       x86_64 2.6.0-2.fc43                      updates          39.2 KiB
[...]

There is not much DNF5 can do. Especially recommends what packages to uninstall or replace because it has no insights int what is and what is not essential for the user.

I recommend you reporting a bug against openh264 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&component=openh264.

[Ricky-Tigg]

These instructions should be there at the output, where we need them, and not have to look for them elsewhere, here in a GitHub ticket.

"I guess you overlooked those lines." | These lines are so far your own mentions, not present in my ouput. How then could they be overlooked?

No issue against openh264 with '--allowerasing' and without '--best'. No reporting needed then.

[ppisar]

You opened a general discussion and and provided a general answer that DNF5 appends the hint.

If you have a real problem, then open an issue with real reproducer including a version of DNF5, a version of distribution, conguration dump (dnf --dump-main-config), full list of all packages you have installed on your system before executing the dnf upgrade and an exact command you execute. A content of /var/log/dnf5.log should be also of interest.