Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1260252 - Spurious package sssd-common-1.13.0-2.fc22.x86_64 requires libldb(x86-64) = 1.1.20, but none of the providers can be installed message
Summary: Spurious package sssd-common-1.13.0-2.fc22.x86_64 requires libldb(x86-64) = 1...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1148627
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf
Version: 22
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Packaging Maintenance Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-09-05 02:10 UTC by Orion Poplawski
Modified: 2015-09-11 10:27 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-09-07 12:19:27 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
debugdata.tar (8.13 MB, application/x-tar)
2015-09-05 02:10 UTC, Orion Poplawski 		no flags Details
View All

Description Orion Poplawski 2015-09-05 02:10:20 UTC 
Created attachment 1070440 [details]
debugdata.tar

Description of problem:

Currently there is an issue with a kde update.  I'm getting:

# dnf upgrade --best  --debugsolver
Repository rawhide has no mirror or baseurl set.
Repository rawhide-debuginfo has no mirror or baseurl set.
Repository rawhide-source has no mirror or baseurl set.
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:10:56 ago on Fri Sep  4 19:54:17 2015.
Error: nothing provides libKF5Baloo.so.5()(64bit) needed by plasma-desktop-5.4.0-2.fc22.x86_64.
package sddm-breeze-5.4.0-6.fc22.1.noarch requires plasma-workspace = 5.4.0-6.fc22.1, but none of the providers can be installed.
package sssd-common-1.13.0-2.fc22.x86_64 requires libldb(x86-64) = 1.1.20, but none of the providers can be installed
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)

The message about sssd-common though is very strange as they are both already installed:

Installed Packages
libldb.x86_64        1.1.20-1.fc22             @System        
sssd-common.x86_64   1.13.0-2.fc22             @System        

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libsolv-0.6.11-2.fc22.x86_64
hawkey-0.6.0-1.fc22.x86_64
dnf-1.1.0-2.fc22.noarch
Comment 1 Radek Holy 2015-09-07 12:19:27 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1148627 ***
Comment 2 Andrew Meredith 2015-09-11 10:27:26 UTC 
This is not an issue with the debug output of dnf, this is a packaging problem.

# dnf upgrade
Last metadata expiration check performed 22:08:46 ago on Thu Sep 10 13:14:58 2015.
Dependencies resolved.
======================================================================================================================
 Package                       Arch                    Version                         Repository                Size
======================================================================================================================
Skipping packages with broken dependencies:
 libldb                        x86_64                  1.1.21-1.fc22                   updates                  133 k
 libldb-devel                  x86_64                  1.1.21-1.fc22                   updates                   76 k

Transaction Summary
======================================================================================================================

Nothing to do.
Complete!


Having downloaded the packages...


# rpm -Uvh libldb-1.1.21-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm libldb-devel-1.1.21-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm 
error: Failed dependencies:
	libldb(x86-64) = 1.1.20 is needed by (installed) sssd-common-1.13.0-2.fc22.x86_64


It would seem that the current version of sssd-common is pinned to the 1.1.20 version of libldb, preventing its upgrade to 1.1.21

This is a packaging issue not an issue with debug output, so therefore is not a duplicate of bug 1148627
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.