[CentOS-devel] Packages dropping out of modules

Fri Feb 14 14:28:30 UTC 2020
Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy at redhat.com>

On pe, 14 helmi 2020, Paul Clifford wrote:
>Earlier this month this was a report that softhsm was available but 
>not installable in CentOS 8 due to a "No available modular metadata 
>for modular package" error.  The solution was to enable the idm:DL1 
>module, but my understanding is that modular packages shouldn't be 
>visible while their modules are disabled (this seems to be the 
>behaviour in RHEL 8).
>Looking in 
>http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/ there 
>are two versions of softhsm in the AppStream repository:
>* softhsm-2.4.0-2.module_el8.1.0+253+3b90c921.x86_64.rpm
>* softhsm-2.4.0-2.module_el8.1.0+265+e1e65be4.x86_64.rpm
>The repository's modules.yaml file only describes one version of the 
>module, idm:DL1:8010020200121181805:4a0acb9a:x86_64, which owns the 
>newer package.  When idm:DL1 is enabled this masks the older softhsm 
>version but when it's disabled (the default) the newer package is 
>removed from view, and with no repository metadata to indicate that 
>the older softhsm is part of a module it effectively becomes an 
>ordinary member of the AppStream repository.

I think both of these builds belong to idm:DL1, just to two different
module builds. There are other packages from idm:DL1 module stream that
are duplicated.

Module build 253: https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/builds?tagID=488
Module build 265: https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/builds?tagID=513

>So "dnf install softhsm" offers two different package versions based 
>on whether or not idm:DL1 is enabled, instead of failing with "Error: 
>Unable to find a match" when the module is disabled.

I agree that dnf should not show any of them if they both belong to
disabled module stream.

/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland