# dnf update
Last metadata expiration check: 0:07:39 ago on Wed 01 Dec 2021 09:27:00 CET.
Error:
Problem 1: package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install both libjxl-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 and libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- cannot install the best update candidate for package libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- cannot install the best update candidate for package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64
Problem 2: package gimp-heif-plugin-1.1.0-10.fc35.x86_64 requires libheif.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install both libjxl-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 and libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- package jxl-pixbuf-loader-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package jxl-pixbuf-loader-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0.6(JXL_0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package jxl-pixbuf-loader-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl_threads.so.0.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install the best update candidate for package jxl-pixbuf-loader-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- cannot install the best update candidate for package gimp-heif-plugin-1.1.0-10.fc35.x86_64
Problem 3: problem with installed package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64
- package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install both libjxl-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 and libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- package libaom-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package libaom-3.2.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0.6(JXL_0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install the best update candidate for package libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
Problem 4: problem with installed package gimp-heif-plugin-1.1.0-10.fc35.x86_64
- package gimp-heif-plugin-1.1.0-10.fc35.x86_64 requires libheif.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install both libjxl-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 and libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- libjxl-0.6.1-6.fc35.i686 has inferior architecture
- cannot install the best update candidate for package libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.i686
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
As @rathann indicated, this is not installable. Using:
dnf update --refresh --best --allowerasing
I get:
Error:
Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64
- problem with installed package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64
- package libheif-1.12.0-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libjxl.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install the best update candidate for package libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
- cannot install both libjxl-0.6.1-6.fc35.x86_64 and libjxl-0.5-3.fc35.x86_64
@stevenfalco: libheif is not part of Fedora (likely installed from rpmfusion-free) and the update was not coordinated between Fedora + RPM Fusion (as expected - RPM Fusion is an independent 3rd party repo. I think there is some progress to rebuild the package but you should watch RPMFusion bug 6158.
Therefore you should not give negative karma to this update.
Fair enough, regarding libheif. But I just tried again with "dnf update --refresh" and got errors on packages that appear to be part of Fedora itself. @fschwarz, so I get it right next time, are the errors below sufficient to justify the negative karma?
============================================================================================
Package Architecture Version Repository Size
============================================================================================
Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
libjxl x86_64 0.6.1-6.fc35 updates-archive 969 k
libjxl x86_64 0.6.1-6.fc35 updates 969 k
Skipping packages with broken dependencies:
gimp-jxl-plugin x86_64 0.6.1-6.fc35 updates 31 k
jxl-pixbuf-loader x86_64 0.6.1-6.fc35 updates 54 k
libaom x86_64 3.2.0-2.fc35 updates-archive 1.6 M
This update's test gating status has been changed to 'waiting'.
This update has been submitted for testing by bodhi.
This update's test gating status has been changed to 'ignored'.
This update has been pushed to testing.
This update has obsoleted aom-3.2.0-1.fc35, and has inherited its bugs and notes.
Yet again an ABI break with this update.
no regressions noted
OK, just to make clear that the ABI is {{broken}}} !
Bodhi is disabling automatic push to stable due to negative karma. The maintainer may push manually if they determine that the issue is not severe.
This update can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes
This update has been submitted for stable by besser82.
This update has been pushed to stable.
Not installable:
As @rathann indicated, this is not installable. Using:
I get:
This is not only about rpmfusion packages, we can still fix easily.
But there are a fair number of packages broken in fedora.
@stevenfalco:
libheifis not part of Fedora (likely installed fromrpmfusion-free) and the update was not coordinated between Fedora + RPM Fusion (as expected - RPM Fusion is an independent 3rd party repo. I think there is some progress to rebuild the package but you should watch RPMFusion bug 6158.Therefore you should not give negative karma to this update.
Fair enough, regarding libheif. But I just tried again with "dnf update --refresh" and got errors on packages that appear to be part of Fedora itself. @fschwarz, so I get it right next time, are the errors below sufficient to justify the negative karma?