Closed j-mracek closed 1 year ago
Yeah, I think it shouldn't insist on keeping the i586<->x86_64 lockstep if the user explicitly asked to break it. Having said that, why is the updates repo visible for erase operations?
Yeah, I think it shouldn't insist on keeping the i586<->x86_64 lockstep if the user explicitly asked to break it. Having said that, why is the updates repo visible for erase operations?
The issue is triggered by dnf history undo <id>
- see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172288. DNF doesn't know in advance whether the operation will be only remove or a combination or something else. As a reproducer could also be used dnf shell
command where DNF first loads all data and then user specify requests from interactive shell.
Ok, commit 634371f143e5c0d4244dd46084d0aa7ccdb3967c should fix it.
May I ask you to look at following test case? The test case generates following error message:
Interesting is that the issue is reproducible only when available repository called
updates
in the test case is present.