Can you provide the --allowerasing option as suggested by DNF?

(In reply to Daniel Mach from comment #1)
> Can you provide the --allowerasing option as suggested by DNF?

No, I do not want to add --allowerasing to automatic updates
You never know which *important* package will will be automatically removed due to this options.

If you to replace the package yum(/usr/bin/yum-deprecated) then you should either use Conflict+Obsoletes[1] in dnf or do that via package fedora-obsolete-packages + retire yum package in rawhide.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 29 development cycle.
Changing version to '29'.

*** Bug 1590044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

The conflict was introduced in dnf-2.7.15-13, vide https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dnf/c/8d1c31a72daad1689ebbed9e4983943432eb9822?branch=master.
- Conflicts:      yum < 3.4.3-505
+ Conflicts:      yum

This obviously breaks upgrades from previous Fedora releases. Unversioned Obsoletes should not be used [see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/BK4XGI5XAENKLDZUYJTAOHXJGXLI4ZRA/].

What Lukas writes in comment #c2 is correct — this is something that needs to be fixed in dnf-yum.

openQA also runs into this. Proposing as an FE, anything that breaks upgrades without --allowerasing is worth considering as an FE (since upgrades run without u-t enabled in most cases).

BTW, +1 to Lukas: "just use --allowerasing" is not the correct solution. It's very dangerous to recommend it in case people happen to be in a case where there are *two or more* problems in their package set, where --allowerasing would correctly 'solve' one but would wipe out half their system in the other case.

This is why I'm not too happy that gnome-software does --allowerasing by default (effectively).

Discussed at 2018-09-10 freeze exception review meeting: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2018-09-10/f29-blocker-review.2018-09-10-16.01.html . Accepted as a freeze exception issue as this can prevent upgrades working without the potentially-dangerous --allowerasing , and upgrades typically run without updates-testing so there is a benefit to pushing this stable for folks trying to upgrade at present.

PR https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1209

Well, now it's still broken for people moving to Rawhide...

what is it you actually want to happen? yum to be removed on upgrade? Then you'd want an Obsoletes, not a Conflicts...

*** Bug 1632794 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

dnf-3.6.1-1.fc29 fixes this (for f29), but has not yet been submitted as an update (as we're figuring out what all else needs to be changed alongside it).

Broken for F29->F30 upgrades:
package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum provided by yum-3.4.3-521.fc30.noarch

See bug 1684095 .

Just as I predicted in comment #10:

"Well, now it's still broken for people moving to Rawhide..."

The 'fix' for this was simply to wrap it in a `%if 0%{?fedora} >= 30` conditional. So it's not surprising we're now getting exactly the same problem on upgrades to 30.

DNF folks, can you actually decide what it is you're trying to achieve here, and achieve it properly? Thanks.

*** Bug 1684095 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

It's even broken for simple `sudo dnf update` in Fedora 29 when `mock` is updated having yum-utils installed in the past.

```
$ sudo dnf update mock                                                                                                                                                                                                           Last metadata expiration check: 0:12:27 ago on 2019-03-02T22:05:05 CET.
Dependencies resolved.
===================================================================================================================================
 Package                        Architecture                Version                             Repository                    Size
===================================================================================================================================
Upgrading:
 mock                           noarch                      1.4.14-1.fc29                       updates                      170 k
Installing weak dependencies:
 dnf-utils                      noarch                      4.0.4-1.fc29                        updates                       35 k

Transaction Summary
===================================================================================================================================
Install  1 Package
Upgrade  1 Package

Total size: 205 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
[SKIPPED] dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded                                                                                                                                                                              
[SKIPPED] mock-1.4.14-1.fc29.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded                                                                                                                                                                                  
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
Error: Transaction check error:
  file /usr/bin/debuginfo-install from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/find-repos-of-install from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/needs-restarting from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/package-cleanup from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
(...)
  file /usr/share/man/man1/yumdownloader.1.gz from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch

Error Summary
-------------
```

If you think it should be separately reported to the mock component please let me know.

Of course removing yum-utils prior to that update solves the problem, but it would be better to have it done automatically.

Discussed during the 2019-03-04 blocker review meeting: [1]

The decision to classify this bug as an "AcceptedFreezeException" was made as this interferes with upgrades in a common case. Granting an FE allows a fix to go to F30 stable during freeze, so upgrades run without updates-testing enabled (the usual case) during freeze period will not hit the bug.

[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2019-03-04/f30-blocker-review.2019-03-04-17.03.txt

hi don't think this exactly the right place to be ,but it beautifully covers my problem
the error summary shown by Marcin is the same problem i have had for more than i would like

sudo dnf update
produces a 

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================================================================================================================
Install    9 Packages
Upgrade  249 Packages
Remove     6 Packages

Total size: 463 M
Total download size: 413 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
[SKIPPED] dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded                                                                                                             
[SKIPPED] kernel-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded                                                                                                            
[SKIPPED] kernel-core-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded                                                                                                       
[SKIPPED] kernel-devel-4.20.13-200.fc29.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded 
etc...to

[SKIPPED] google-chrome-stable-72.0.3626.121-1.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded                                                                                               
(253/258): libxcrypt-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.i686.drpm                                                                                     16 kB/s |  23 kB     00:01    
(254/258): libxcrypt-devel-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.x86_64.drpm                                                                             12 kB/s |  19 kB     00:01    
[DRPM 1/4] libxcrypt-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.i686.drpm: done                                                                                                             
(255/258): libxcrypt-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.x86_64.drpm                                                                                   15 kB/s |  24 kB     00:01    
(256/258): libxcrypt-static-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.x86_64.drpm                                                                            81 kB/s |  19 kB     00:00    
[DRPM 2/4] libxcrypt-devel-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.x86_64.drpm: done                                                                                                     
[DRPM 3/4] libxcrypt-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.x86_64.drpm: done                                                                                                           
(257/258): kmodtool-1-33.fc29.noarch.rpm                                                                                                      78 kB/s |  13 kB     00:00    
(258/258): akmods-0.5.6-19.fc29.noarch.rpm                                                                                                    93 kB/s |  23 kB     00:00    
[DRPM 4/4] libxcrypt-static-4.4.3-10.fc29_4.4.4-1.fc29.x86_64.drpm: done                                                                                                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                                                                         28 kB/s | 122 kB     00:04     
Delta RPMs reduced 462.8 MB of updates to 462.5 MB (0.1% saved)
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
Error: Transaction check error:
  file /usr/bin/debuginfo-install from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/find-repos-of-install from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/needs-restarting from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/package-cleanup from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/repo-graph from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
  file /usr/bin/repoclosure from install of dnf-utils-4.0.4-1.fc29.noarch conflicts with file from package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc29.noarch
etc....
my Question is whereabouts do I find a simple and secure solution to my update problem?

this system was bequeathed by my brother whom was a long-time  linux maintainer, (alland was one of his aliases) but i am but a longterm novice but keen to keep it running and maintained.
Phil Duncan
Lapoinya 
Tasmania

duncanapa.au

@Phill I'm not sure what answer do you expect to get. However, to just solve your issue on that particular system it should be enough to first remove yum-utils (which files conflict with new to-be-installed weak dependency dnf-utils):
> sudo dnf remove yum-utils

and then retry the update:
> sudo dnf update

thanks 

i was not sure of what answer i would get 
but the one i received was perfect

do you know of a forum that would be a suitable level for me to join
as i am don't wish to clog up bugzilla with basic problems
although i would like to be able to contribute as much as i am able .ie system crash report

@Phill, depending on your preferences you may use one of the official channels of communication:
 - forum - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/
 - mailing list - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users.lists.fedoraproject.org/
 - SO like site - https://ask.fedoraproject.org/
 - IRC - #fedora at freenode :)

Or alternatively an unofficial forum: https://forums.fedoraforum.org/

In general, I propose you to read the corresponding page on the project wiki to see the big picture :)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicating_and_getting_help

thanks

Should https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bc9607a8dc be marked as fixing this? It is mentioned in the dnf changelog.

Thanks a lot, the issue was already fixed in dnf-4.2.5.

clearing stale needinfo