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