Trouble updating from fc36 to fc38

patrickg · May 4, 2023, 9:11pm

Dear all,

I just updated my laptop from fc36 to fc38 running the command:

% sudo dnf system-upgrade download --disablerepo=rpmfusion* --allowerasing --releasever=38|&tee fc38.log

which ran successfully as seen at the end of fc38.log

% tail fc38.log
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
Transaction test succeeded.
Complete!
Transaction saved to /var/lib/dnf/system-upgrade/system-upgrade-transaction.json.
Download complete! Use ‘dnf system-upgrade reboot’ to start the upgrade.
To remove cached metadata and transaction use ‘dnf system-upgrade clean’
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing ‘dnf clean packages’.

Then I ran the command
% sudo dnf system-upgrade reboot

It rebooted and did the update with the graphical interface without apparent problem and rebooted.

I am able to login and I tried to run

% sudo dnf upgrade --refresh

and got surprised to see references to fc36 instead of fc38!

[sudo] password for patrick:
Copr repo for remarkable owned by neteler 8.5 kB/s | 3.3 kB 00:00
Copr repo for PyCharm owned by phracek 20 kB/s | 2.1 kB 00:00
dell-system-update_independent 4.6 kB/s | 2.3 kB 00:00
dell-system-update_dependent 2.2 kB/s | 2.3 kB 00:01
Fedora 36 - x86_64 36 kB/s | 18 kB 00:00 <— HERE
Fedora 36 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 3.4 kB/s | 989 B 00:00 <— HERE
Fedora Modular 36 - x86_64 50 kB/s | 18 kB 00:00 <— HERE
negativo17 - Multimedia 77 kB/s | 5.8 kB 00:00
Fedora 36 - x86_64 - Updates 358 kB/s | 16 kB 00:00 <---- HERE
Fedora Modular 36 - x86_64 - Updates 39 kB/s | 17 kB 00:00 <— HERE
Gnome Encfs Manager (15.4) 17 kB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
MySQL 8.0 Community Server 204 kB/s | 2.6 kB 00:00
MySQL Connectors Community 242 kB/s | 2.6 kB 00:00
MySQL Tools Community 404 kB/s | 2.6 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 36 - Nonfree - Steam 52 kB/s | 6.4 kB 00:00
skype (stable) 46 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
teams 20 kB/s | 1.5 kB 00:00
Fedora 36 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 12 kB/s | 819 B 00:00 <— HERE
Fedora 36 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 2.5 kB/s | 1.7 kB 00:00 <— HERE
Fedora 36 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 20 kB/s | 819 B 00:00 <— HERE
Visual Studio Code 1.3 kB/s | 1.5 kB 00:01
Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
Dependencies resolved.

I then checked the system version
$ uname -a
Linux jazz6 6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon May 1 00:55:28 UTC 2023 x86_64 GNU/Linux
and the files in /boot
ls /boot
config-6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64
config-6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64
efi/
extlinux/
grub2/
initramfs-0-rescue-e79da7f74b684170b22f5a43eeaae2a3.img
initramfs-6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64.img
initramfs-6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64.img
loader/
lost+found/
symvers-6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64.gz@
symvers-6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64.gz@
System.map-6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64
System.map-6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64
vmlinuz-0-rescue-e79da7f74b684170b22f5a43eeaae2a3*
vmlinuz-6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64*
.vmlinuz-6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64.hmac
vmlinuz-6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64*
.vmlinuz-6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64.hmac

But if I run the command

% rpm -qa | grep kernel | sort

abrt-addon-kerneloops-2.15.1-1.fc36.x86_64
kernel-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-core-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-devel-5.19.16-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-devel-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-devel-matched-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-headers-6.0.5-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-modules-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-modules-extra-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
kernel-srpm-macros-1.0-14.fc36.noarch
libreport-plugin-kerneloops-2.17.4-1.fc36.x86_64

which is an old fc36 kernel, not the one currently installed!

It looks to me like dnf/rpm is completely messed up!

Trying the command
% rpm -qf /usr/src/kernels/6.2.14-*
file /usr/src/kernels/6.2.14-100.fc36.x86_64 is not owned by any package
file /usr/src/kernels/6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64 is not owned by any package

and there is no /usr/src/kernels/6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64 since it has been cleaned when updating to a more recent version.

Running the command
% rpm -ql kernel-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64
(contains no files)

I am completely clueless what has gone wrong during the installation and I am not sure what to do or where to start looking at but from the gnome settings gnome version 44.1 is installed!

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Patrick

vgaetera · May 4, 2023, 9:17pm

F38 upgrade error: System Is full of duplicate packages after update - #17 by vgaetera

patrickg · May 5, 2023, 11:19am

Thank for your suggestion, I tried without success.

% sudo dnf --releasever=38 distro-sync
Problem 1: package nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64 requires libnautilus-extension.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

nautilus-extensions-42.2-1.fc36.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
problem with installed package nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64
Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-36-1.noarch requires system-release(36), but none of the providers can be installed
fedora-release-workstation-36-20.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-36-1.noarch
Problem 3: package fedora-release-workstation-36-20.noarch requires fedora-release-common = 36-20, but none of the providers can be installed
package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-36-1.noarch requires system-release(36), but none of the providers can be installed
fedora-release-common-36-20.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-36-1.noarch
(try to add ‘–skip-broken’ to skip uninstallable packages)

I tried with adding --skip-broken but got the same error.

I had to disable rpmfusion as it was creating a lot of conflicts when doing the dist-upgrade. I prefer to use the negativo17 multimedia distro for nvidia, vlc, HandBrake-gui and uses rpmfusion only for dropbox.

I think the problem is that for some reasons the rpm (and dnf?) database is/are corrupted.

I know the rpm nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64 is not installed.
% sudo dnf history list nautilus-dropbox
ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered

1140 | remove nautilus-dropbox | 2022-11-21 15:38 | Removed | 1 E<
1107 | remove nautilus-dropbox | 2022-11-20 21:34 | Removed | 1 ><
854 | reinstall * | 2022-11-18 16:40 | R | 6012 ><
830 | reinstall n* | 2022-11-18 16:24 | R | 110 ><
757 | remove nautilus-dropbox-2 | 2022-10-28 18:01 | Removed | 1 ><
14 | install nautilus-dropbox | 2022-03-11 16:38 | Install | 1 >

As I was explaining in my first email, it looks like the rpm database is not in sync and has been replaced by an older database.
An example is firefox I am using now to write this message, according to rpm it is
% rpm -qf /bin/firefox
firefox-106.0.4-1.fc36.x86_64
but before the upgrade I had
firefox.x86_64 112.0.1-1.fc36

Running the command
% sudo dnf history list firefox
ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered

1585 | system-upgrade upgrade | 2023-05-04 16:22 | D, E, I, O, R, | 3522 E<
1533 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-04-26 08:17 | Upgrade | 1 ><
1478 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-04-15 10:21 | I, U | 24 ><
1459 | | 2023-03-31 09:09 | Upgrade | 13 ><
1442 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-03-23 08:08 | Upgrade | 11 ><
1370 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-02-17 17:00 | Upgrade | 9 ><
1341 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-02-05 14:48 | Upgrade | 9 ><
1330 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-01-31 08:49 | Upgrade | 2 ><
1312 | upgrade --refresh | 2023-01-22 09:14 | Upgrade | 9 ><
1256 | upgrade --refresh | 2022-12-26 19:29 | I, U | 35 ><
1223 | upgrade --refresh | 2022-12-08 08:08 | Upgrade | 11 ><
1182 | upgrade --refresh | 2022-11-26 11:05 | Upgrade | 51 ><
1179 | upgrade --refresh | 2022-11-25 08:16 | Upgrade | 1 ><
1119 | reinstall * | 2022-11-21 12:55 | R | 6292 ><
854 | reinstall * | 2022-11-18 16:40 | R | 6012 ><
817 | reinstall f* | 2022-11-18 11:45 | R | 176 ><
804 | upgrade --refresh | 2022-11-17 12:48 | I, U | 165

and
% sudo dnf history info 1179 | grep firefox
Upgrade firefox-107.0-3.fc36.x86_64 @updates
Upgraded firefox-106.0.4-1.fc36.x86_64 @@System

I can see that the version 106.0.4 was upgraded several time since 25 Nov 2022.

For some reasons, rpm does not seem to know anything of it and instead uses an old rpm database.
I am not sure to understand either why when running
% sudo dnf upgrade --refresh
dnf seems to think it is running fc36 as can be seen here
Fedora 36 - x86_64 175 kB/s | 18 kB 00:00
So it is replacing $releasever in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
with 36 while the command
% uname -a
Linux jazz6 6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon May 1 00:55:28 UTC 2023 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I think most of installed packages are fc38 but for some reasons rpm database shows an older state of its database.

Would there be a way to check the history of the rpm database?

Many thanks,

Patrick

vgaetera · May 5, 2023, 12:15pm

Make sure the official Fedora repos are enabled:

dnf repolist

Then remove the conflicting packages like this:

sudo rpm --nodeps -e nautilus-dropbox

patrickg · May 5, 2023, 12:46pm

Thank you for your message, I have run the command
% dnf repolist
repo id repo name
code Visual Studio Code
copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:neteler:remarkable Copr repo for remarkable owned by neteler
copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:phracek:PyCharm Copr repo for PyCharm owned by phracek
dell-system-update_dependent dell-system-update_dependent
dell-system-update_independent dell-system-update_independent
fedora Fedora 36 - x86_64
fedora-cisco-openh264 Fedora 36 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
fedora-modular Fedora Modular 36 - x86_64
fedora-multimedia negativo17 - Multimedia
home_moritzmolch_gencfsm Gnome Encfs Manager (15.4)
mysql-connectors-community MySQL Connectors Community
mysql-tools-community MySQL Tools Community
mysql80-community MySQL 8.0 Community Server
rpmfusion-nonfree-steam RPM Fusion for Fedora 36 - Nonfree - Steam
skype-stable skype (stable)
teams teams
updates Fedora 36 - x86_64 - Updates
updates-modular Fedora Modular 36 - x86_64 - Updates
virtualbox Fedora 36 - x86_64 - VirtualBox

which shows fedora 36 which is wrong as I am running kernel
% uname -a
Linux jazz6 6.2.14-300.fc38.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon May 1 00:55:28 UTC 2023 x86_64 GNU/Linux

So clearly something is out of sync. Do you know where $releasever is read from? Why when running dnf repolist do I get 36 instead of 38 repos?

Otherwise I am not sure to understand “remove the conflicting packages” as clearly these packages are not installed anyway as I wrote and it looks like the rpm database has been replaced by an older state.

Many thanks,
Patrick

vgaetera · May 5, 2023, 1:57pm

dnf download fedora-release-{common,{identity-,}workstation} --releasever=38
sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-{common,{identity-,}workstation}
sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-{common,{identity-,}workstation}-*.rpm

patrickg · May 5, 2023, 3:29pm

Thank you again for your prompt response, I highly appreciate!
I downloaded the three fedora-release files with dnf download

fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch.rpm
fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-35.noarch.rpm
fedora-release-workstation-38-35.noarch.rpm

I looked at the content with rpm -ql and checked the files that are installed
% rpm -ql fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch.rpm
warning: fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID eb10b464: NOKEY
/etc/fedora-release
/etc/issue
/etc/issue.d
/etc/issue.net
/etc/os-release
/etc/redhat-release
/etc/swid
/etc/swid/swidtags.d
/etc/swid/swidtags.d/fedoraproject.org
/etc/system-release
/etc/system-release-cpe
/usr/lib/fedora-release
/usr/lib/issue
/usr/lib/issue.net
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.dist
/usr/lib/swidtag/fedoraproject.org
/usr/lib/swidtag/fedoraproject.org/org.fedoraproject.Fedora-38.swidtag
/usr/lib/system-release-cpe
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/85-display-manager.preset
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/90-default.preset
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/99-default-disable.preset
/usr/lib/systemd/user-preset
/usr/lib/systemd/user-preset/90-default-user.preset
/usr/lib/systemd/user-preset/99-default-disable.preset
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common/Fedora-Legal-README.txt
/usr/share/licenses/fedora-release-common/LICENSE

and could check that files like /etc/fedora-release, /etc/os-release, /etc/redhat-release and others all contain version 38 so clearly the fedora-release-* files for version 38 are installed. Isn’t $releasever used by dnf with /etc/yum.d/fedora.repo read from these files or am I missing something?
Still I get the following when running
% rpm -qf /etc/os-release
fedora-release-common-36-20.noarch
Wouldn’t be a way to check the history of the rpm database forcing a erasing and reinstall (rpm -e then rpm -i)?
Many thanks
Patrick

vgaetera · May 5, 2023, 3:36pm

Check the output:

rpm -q -a fedora-release\*
rpm -q -f $(readlink -f /etc/os-release)

patrickg · May 5, 2023, 3:48pm

Here we go
% rpm -q -a fedora-release*
fedora-release-identity-workstation-36-20.noarch
fedora-release-workstation-36-20.noarch
fedora-release-common-36-20.noarch
error: Verifying a signature using certificate 9E02B8BC00D3DF2B01C3C013D1F3DBBF95FAD414 (home:moritzmolch OBS Project home:moritzmolch@build.opensuse.org):

Certificiate D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: certificate is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
Key D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: key is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
% rpm -q -f $(readlink -f /etc/os-release)
fedora-release-identity-workstation-36-20.noarch

So clearly no 38 version registered in rpm database even though the files are only version 38 files.

I have also tried to run the command
% rpm -qa --last | less
error: Verifying a signature using certificate 9E02B8BC00D3DF2B01C3C013D1F3DBBF95FAD414 (home:moritzmolch OBS Project home:moritzmolch@build.opensuse.org):

Certificiate D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: certificate is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
Key D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: key is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
kmod-VirtualBox-6.0.8-200.fc36.x86_64-7.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:08:05 GMT
VirtualBox-server-7.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT
VirtualBox-7.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT
podman-plugins-4.3.1-1.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT
podman-4.3.1-1.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT
pipewire-utils-0.3.60-5.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT
pipewire-pulseaudio-0.3.60-5.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT
pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.60-5.fc36.x86_64 Mon 21 Nov 2022 13:07:58 GMT

It looks like all the rpm transactions after 21 Nov 2022 have disappeared which is what I suspected, the database is not up to date. Is there a way to check whether there is a backup of a more recent version somewhere? Would that be an idea to try rebuilding the rpm database using rpm --rebuilddb?
I just looked at some notes I had and I just looked at the content of /var/lib/rpm and indeed the file is from Nov 21
ll /var/lib/rpm
total 255968
-rw-r–r–. 1 root root 0 May 4 16:31 .migratedb
-rw-r–r–. 1 root root 262078464 Nov 21 13:08 rpmdb.sqlite
-rw-r–r–. 1 root root 32768 May 5 16:26 rpmdb.sqlite-shm
-rw-r–r–. 1 root root 0 Nov 21 13:08 rpmdb.sqlite-wal
-rw-r–r–. 1 root root 0 Oct 28 2022 .rpm.lock
So clearly the rpm database is not up-to-date
Patrick

vgaetera · May 5, 2023, 4:06pm

Try this way, assuming the relevant RPMs are already downloaded:

sudo rpm --rebuilddb
sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-workstation
sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-identity-workstation
sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-common
sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-common-38-*.noarch.rpm
sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-*.noarch.rpm
sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-workstation-38-*.noarch.rpm
sudo ln -f -r -s /usr/lib/os-release /etc
rpm -q -a fedora-release\*
rpm -V -a fedora-release\*

patrickg · May 5, 2023, 5:04pm

Is it really safe to do a rpm --rebuilddb? Will rpm be able to see that my rpms’ are f38 and not f36?
I have looked for some information regarding rpm --rebuilddb and it looks like the directory /var/lib/rpm/ should contain a file Packages?
Many thanks
Patrick

vgaetera · May 5, 2023, 5:31pm

You can back the RPM database before rebuilding.
The database format was changed in Fedora 33.

patrickg · May 6, 2023, 11:23am

Thank you , I have now rebuild the database without any issue but it didn’t change anything.
I still have the old rpm database from 21 Nov 2022 and running dnf upgrade --refresh still point to version 36.
I haven’t run the other rpm -e amd rpm -i but I would like to understand what you expect from these commands. Do you think it will help when runnung dnf upgrade --refresh to point to version 38?
Many thanks,

vgaetera · May 6, 2023, 11:38am

What is the output when running the above commands?

patrickg · May 6, 2023, 12:14pm

[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --rebuilddb
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-workstation
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-identity-workstation
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-common
warning: file org.fedoraproject.Fedora-36.swidtag: remove failed: No such file or directory
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-common-38-.noarch.rpm
warning: fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID eb10b464: NOKEY
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-.noarch.rpm
warning: fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-35.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID eb10b464: NOKEY
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-workstation-38-*.noarch.rpm
warning: fedora-release-workstation-38-35.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID eb10b464: NOKEY
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo ln -f -r -s /usr/lib/os-release /etc
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ rpm -q -a fedora-release*
error: Verifying a signature using certificate 9E02B8BC00D3DF2B01C3C013D1F3DBBF95FAD414 (home:moritzmolch OBS Project home:moritzmolch@build.opensuse.org):

Certificiate D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: certificate is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
Key D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: key is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch
fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-35.noarch
fedora-release-workstation-38-35.noarch
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ rpm -V -a fedora-release*
error: Verifying a signature using certificate 9E02B8BC00D3DF2B01C3C013D1F3DBBF95FAD414 (home:moritzmolch OBS Project home:moritzmolch@build.opensuse.org):
Certificiate D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: certificate is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
Key D1F3DBBF95FAD414 invalid: key is not alive
because: The primary key is not live
because: Expired on 2019-12-21T03:49:18Z
Unsatisfied dependencies for fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch:
fedora-repos(38) is needed by (installed) fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch

patrickg · May 6, 2023, 12:22pm

I have try to run dnf upgrade --refresh and now it recognised version 38. I haven’t run it yet.
Is there a way I could attach the logfile of the command
but I attach the output of sudo dnf upgrade --refresh | & tee dnf-upgrade–refresh.log
What would be the best way to proceed? Using this command or dnf distro-sync or anything else?
Many thanks

patrickg · May 6, 2023, 12:28pm

Or shall I update first the fedora-repos
$ rpm -qa | grep fedora-repos
fedora-repos-36-4.noarch
fedora-repos-modular-36-4.noarch

vgaetera · May 6, 2023, 12:51pm

You can import the missing GPG key like this:

sudo rpm --import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-38-$(arch)
sudo rpm --import /usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-38-primary

List the installed GPG keys and remove the expired one:

rpm -q --qf "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}\t%{SUMMARY}\n" gpg-pubkey | sort -k 2
sudo rpm -e gpg-pubkey-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx

Then try again the above commands to make sure they run without error.

patrickg · May 6, 2023, 1:16pm

The two import commands run sucessfully
There was only one command matching the string moritz
% rpm -q --qf “%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}\t%{SUMMARY}\n” gpg-pubkey | sort -k 2|grep moritz
gpg-pubkey-95fad414-59dee63e home:moritzmolch OBS Project home:moritzmolch@build.opensuse.org public key
so I removed it sucessfully
% sudo rpm -e gpg-pubkey-95fad414-59dee63e
Then I rerun the commands, as you can see there is still warning
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --rebuilddb
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-workstation
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-identity-workstation
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --nodeps -e fedora-release-common
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-common-38-.noarch.rpm
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-.noarch.rpm
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo rpm --force --nodeps -i fedora-release-workstation-38-*.noarch.rpm
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ sudo ln -f -r -s /usr/lib/os-release /etc
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ rpm -q -a fedora-release*
fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch
fedora-release-identity-workstation-38-35.noarch
fedora-release-workstation-38-35.noarch
[patrick@jazz6 ~]$ rpm -V -a fedora-release*
Unsatisfied dependencies for fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch:
fedora-repos(38) is needed by (installed) fedora-release-common-38-35.noarch

I also noticed that the distro-sync would not work
sudo dnf distro-sync
Fedora 38 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 444 B/s | 819 B 00:01
Fedora 38 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 2.2 kB/s | 1.7 kB 00:00
Fedora 38 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 12 kB/s | 819 B 00:00
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo ‘virtualbox’: repomd.xml GPG signature verification error: Bad GPG signature
Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
Last metadata expiration check: 0:09:48 ago on Sat 06 May 2023 14:03:49 BST.
Error:
Problem: package nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64 requires libnautilus-extension.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

nautilus-extensions-42.2-1.fc36.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
problem with installed package nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64
(try to add ‘–skip-broken’ to skip uninstallable packages)
while the dnf update --refresh would seem to work. I have the log files of the output but I am not sure whether it is possible to share in these discussions.
I also have the log of the original command I run to upgrade
sudo dnf system-upgrade download --disablerepo=rpmfusion* --allowerasing --releasever=38 | & tee fc38.log

vgaetera · May 6, 2023, 1:20pm

Import the new GPG key and temporarily remove the conflicting packages:

sudo rpm --import https://www.virtualbox.org/download/oracle_vbox_2016.asc
sudo rpm --nodeps -e nautilus-extensions
sudo rpm --nodeps -e nautilus-dropbox

You can post the upgrade log to paste.centos.org or cpaste.org.

Trouble updating from fc36 to fc38

I know the rpm nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64 is not installed. % sudo dnf history list nautilus-dropbox ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered

Running the command % sudo dnf history list firefox ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered

I know the rpm nautilus-dropbox-1:2020.03.04-3.fc35.x86_64 is not installed.
% sudo dnf history list nautilus-dropbox
ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered

Running the command
% sudo dnf history list firefox
ID | Command line | Date and time | Action(s) | Altered