Common F30 bugs

In other languages: English (en) português (pt) [edit]

This page documents common bugs in Fedora 30 and, if available, fixes or workarounds for these problems. If you find your problem in this page, please do not file a bug for it, unless otherwise instructed. Where appropriate, a reference to the current bug(s) in Bugzilla is included.

Release Notes

Read the Fedora 30 release announcement and the Fedora 30 release notes for specific information about changes in Fedora 30 and other general information.

My bug is not listed

Not every bug is listed in this page, but Bugzilla should be a comprehensive database of known bugs. This page is a sampling of the bugs most commonly discussed on our mailing lists and forums.

To see if your bug has already been reported, you can search Bugzilla. If it has not yet been reported, we encourage you to do so to help improve Fedora for yourself and others. A guide to Bugs and feature requests has been prepared to assist you.

If you believe an already-reported bug report should be added to this page because it is commonly encountered, you can:

• Add it yourself, if you have wiki access. Common bugs instructions provides guidance on how to add an entry to the page correctly, but the most important thing is to make sure that the bug is listed - don't worry if you don't get the format quite right, we can clean it up later.
• Or, add the CommonBugs keyword to the bug report. Someone from the QA team will then inspect the issue to determine whether the bug should be listed as a common bug. To expedite your request, please add a comment to the bug that includes
  1. a summary of the problem
  2. any known workarounds
  3. an assessment on the impact to Fedora users

For reference, you can query Bugzilla for bugs tagged CommonBugs:

• CommonBugs? (bugs with CommonBugs keyword, but do not yet have a link to this page)
• CommonBugs+(bugs with CommonBugs keyword and contain a link to this page)

Core system issues

Upgrade bcache based systems to Fedora 30 may result in severe storage corruption

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1708315

Fedora 30 kernels may severely corrupt your system when you are using bcache. No proper workaround exists yet.

DNF logs very verbosely by default, leads to large log files

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1355764

By default, the DNF included with Fedora 30 does some very verbose logging. Especially the file /var/log/dnf.librepo.log contains very detailed logging of mirror selection and file download operations. Some operations, such as a system upgrade or reposync, can potentially cause multiple gigabytes of messages to be written to this log file. The DNF log files are configured for rotation, so they will be compressed and expired weekly so long as logrotate is installed, but this can be insufficient when a single operation can cause the files to grow very large.

If the DNF log files are filling up your disk and you need a solution urgently, it is safe to simply remove the log files (after copying them elsewhere if you need them for reference), this will not break anything. A future libdnf update is planned to reduce the dnf.librepo.log verbosity. Until then, if this is an ongoing problem for you, you can work around it by redirecting the log output to /dev/null - see this bug comment for one way to do that.

1663040

link to this item

Fedora 30's SELinux policy prevents systemd services with {{{1}}} from starting if some key mount points are not correctly labelled (/dev, /proc, /sys etc.) In most cases you should not run into this issue, but some users who have transferred existing installations to other systems or deployed Fedora in unusual ways may do so (for instance, Hans de Goede ran into this after transferring a Fedora system from one disk to another using cp -pr, which does not preserve these labels).

A 'normal' relabel will not solve this problem as the mount points have something mounted on them by the time it runs, and the relabelling is applied to the mounts, not the underlying mount points. To relabel the mount points, you must boot a live or rescue image, mount the installed system's root filesystem, change into the mounted directory, and run:

chcon -t device_t dev
chcon -t home_root_t home
chcon -t root_t proc sys
chcon -t var_run_t run

Then unmount the mounted directory and reboot to the installed system, and now things should be fixed.

Upgrade issues

GRUB boot menu is not populated after an upgrade

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1652806

If you have a legacy BIOS installation (i.e. not UEFI), it is possible that after the upgrade process the GRUB bootloader will not populate the boot menu, and instead displays a GRUB prompt. This happens on systems that were originally installed using Fedora 20 or older.

This happens because the GRUB core and modules in legacy BIOS are never updated unless the grub2-install command is executed. In Fedora 30 the default GRUB configuration is changed to use BootLoaderSpec-style files by default, and the blscfg module is updated when the grub2-pc-modules package is upgraded. However, this module is only compatible with versions of the GRUB core up to Fedora 21.

If GRUB has not been updated since Fedora 20 or earlier, it is recommended to execute the grub2-install command before doing a system upgrade. This should not affect legacy BIOS installations since Fedora 21. UEFI installs are unaffected because during upgrade the GRUB EFI image, containing the core and modules, is updated.

If you hit this issue, the old GRUB configuration is stored in /boot/grub2/grub.cfg.rpmsave. So the system can be recovered by executing the following from the GRUB prompt:

grub> configfile /grub2/grub.cfg.rpmsave

And then execute the grub2-install /dev/X command (where X is the boot device, i.e sda) to update the GRUB core and the modules to the latest version installed by the grub2-pc-modules package.

Conflicts between fedora-release packages on upgrade

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1649921

When attempting to upgrade to Fedora 30, you may see conflicts between multiple fedora-release subpackages. If this happens, we recommend you remove one of the conflicting packages to unblock the upgrade. Leave installed the package that most closely matches how you want the system to identify itself - the one that most closely matches your primary use of the system.

Other software issues

Conflicts between fedora-release packages when installing package groups

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1649921

When trying to install package groups, you may run into a conflict between different fedora-release subpackages. This can happen for example if you install the server-product package group or several of the desktop groups after initial system installation. This error would look something like this:

Error: 
 Problem: problem with installed package fedora-release-workstation-30-0.24.noarch
  - package fedora-release-workstation-30-0.24.noarch conflicts with system-release provided by fedora-release-matecompiz-30-0.25.noarch
  - package fedora-release-matecompiz-30-0.25.noarch conflicts with system-release provided by fedora-release-workstation-30-0.24.noarch
  - package fedora-release-workstation-30-0.25.noarch conflicts with system-release provided by fedora-release-matecompiz-30-0.25.noarch
  - package fedora-release-matecompiz-30-0.25.noarch conflicts with system-release provided by fedora-release-workstation-30-0.25.noarch
  - conflicting requests
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

But with the package names depending on the package you already have installed, and the package coming in with the group you are trying to install.

You have four choices for how to resolve this issue. In each case we use the package names from the example above; obviously you should modify these to match the package names that are actually involved in the conflict on your system.

• RECOMMENDED Pass --excludepkg fedora-release-matecompiz to DNF. This will remove just this package from the transaction and allow the rest of the group to be resolved normally. This option will retain your system's "identity" to what it was from initial installation.

• Pass --excludepkg fedora-release-workstation to DNF. This will remove just this package from the transaction and allow the rest of the group to be resolved normally. This option will change your system identity such that it will now report as a MATE Compiz system rather than a Workstation one.

• Pass --skip-broken. This is similar to passing --excludepkg fedora-release-matecompiz except that it will also skip any other potential conflicts which may result in an incomplete group install. Make sure to carefully examine the transaction summary before proceeding. This option will retain your system's "identity" to what it was from initial installation.

• Pass --allowerasing. This is similar to passing --excludepkg fedora-release-workstation except that it may also result in replacing other packages on your system unexpectedly. Make sure to carefully examine the transaction summary before proceeding. This option will change your system identity such that it will now report as a MATE Compiz system rather than a Workstation one.

Problems trying to install Eclipse, or upgrade a system with Eclipse installed

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1692089

Multiple users have reported that attempting to install Eclipse and/or related packages, or to upgrade a system with Eclipse installed to Fedora 30, fails with various dependency errors. This appears to be caused by mismatches between packages in some modules and packages in the non-modular repositories. The relevant packagers are working to investigate and resolve these issues as soon as possible. Please follow the bug report for specific details and possible workarounds.

repoview package cannot be installed

link to this item - Bugzilla: #1703668

The repoview package in Fedora 30 is not installable. This is because one of its dependencies (python2-kid) was retired due to lack of maintenance, and left out of Fedora 30.

As the dependency is essential (repoview does nothing useful without it) and the package is 'baked into' the frozen release tree, we cannot solve this except by reviving python2-kid. If this does not happen, the package will remain available but not installable. We apologize for the inconvenience.