Systems with wine installed cannot be upgraded to Fedora 43

Problem

Due to packaging problems, attempts to upgrade a system with wine packages installed to Fedora 43 will likely fail to proceed.

The issue is related to wine-core and the error will likely look similar to this:

Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
– file /usr/lib64/wine/i386-windows from install of wine-core-10.15-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with file from package wine-core-10.15-1.fc42.x86_64

Note: You might also encounter another issue related to wine-dxvk with an error similar to this:

Problem 1: wine-dxvk-2.6.2-1.fc42.i686 from System has inferior architecture
– wine-dxvk-2.6.2-1.fc42.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
– problem with installed package

Cause

This is caused by a failure to properly package some additional files that appeared in recent versions of wine in such a way as to maintain the ability to have both 32-bit and 64-bit wine installed together. See this comment.

Related Issues

Bugzilla report: #2401666

Workarounds

IMPORTANT NOTE: an alternative workaround involving deleting some symlinks was suggested, but testing indicates that it can result in the upgrade process crashing part-way through, leaving a broken system. Please DO NOT FOLLOW any suggestions to work around this issue by deleting symlink files. Please use the below workaround instead.

The usual approach of using the --allowerasing flag for DNF system upgrade doesn’t help in this case. You’ll either need to wait until the packaging problem is resolved, or remove wine temporarily, perform the upgrade, and then install it again.

You can remove wine and all its subpackages with:

$ sudo dnf remove 'wine*'

Read the output properly to see whether this also removes some application that you care about, which might be dependent on Wine (e.g. some configuration utility or a GUI manager).

After removing the wine packages, perform the system upgrade as usual. Once that is done, you can install wine again (and some additional tools that were also removed previously, if applicable).

9 Likes

You can discuss this issue here.