fedora-iot

#42 Dependency Issue Surrounding SSSD Packages
Closed: working as intended by pbrobinson. Opened by abotelho.

Closed: working as intended
Reopen Issue

Fedora IoT 33, stable. Fresh installation, trying to install the packages I need.

```[root@web2 ~]# rpm-ostree install sssd
Checking out tree b8a69e5... done

Enabled rpm-md repositories: fedora-cisco-openh264 updates fedora
rpm-md repo 'fedora-cisco-openh264' (cached); generated: 2020-08-25T19:10:34Z
rpm-md repo 'updates' (cached); generated: 2021-02-22T00:55:10Z
rpm-md repo 'fedora' (cached); generated: 2020-10-19T23:27:19Z
Importing rpm-md... done
Resolving dependencies... done
error: Could not depsolve transaction; 1 problem detected:
Problem: package sssd-2.4.2-2.fc33.x86_64 requires sssd-common = 2.4.2-2.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed
- conflicting requests
- package sssd-common-2.4.2-2.fc33.x86_64 requires sssd-client(x86-64) = 2.4.2-2.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed
- package sssd-2.3.1-4.fc33.x86_64 requires sssd-common = 2.3.1-4.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install both sssd-client-2.4.2-2.fc33.x86_64 and sssd-client-2.4.1-1.fc33.x86_64
- package libsss_sudo-2.4.1-1.fc33.x86_64 conflicts with sssd-common < 2.4.1-1.fc33 provided by sssd-common-2.3.1-4.fc33.x86_64```

you likely need to update to the latest release before installing the layered packages. The 2.3.1-4.fc33 build is not in the latest stable build.

Metadata Update from @pbrobinson:
- Issue close_status updated to: working as intended
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

@pbrobinson Have you considered adding the archive repo to IoT? It should fix those version mismatch issues.

@jlebon yes, but as outlined when it was first bought up there's security implication to that and it's possible an attacker could jam packages to force vulnerable packages from the archive to be installed but when I bought up in the original thread of discussion around archive and my suggestions for alternatives I was ignored.

Bringing it up on every possible ticket to bang a drum I don't feel is an appropriate means of addressing that.

Perhaps I had a different issue then. I performed an rpm-ostree upgrade as my first step upon booting the installation (before any package installs) and it was telling me it was up-to-date.

I just performed another upgrade just now and a lot of packages updated. I'll have a try and see if I got some progress.

Cheers

@jlebon yes, but as outlined when it was first bought up there's security implication to that and it's possible an attacker could jam packages to force vulnerable packages from the archive to be installed but when I bought up in the original thread of discussion around archive and my suggestions for alternatives I was ignored.

Bringing it up on every possible ticket to bang a drum I don't feel is an appropriate means of addressing that.

Sorry, I didn't realize you still had unresolved concerns about this. I do remember you bringing this up in the original PR, but thought you were convinced otherwise by the end. Not sure what the best avenue to discuss this is, maybe an RHBZ against fedora-repos or just a devel thread?
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.