[BUG] Updates tab: “Operating System Updates Unavailable: your operating system is no longer supported.” #257
Comments
|
What was the image you installed the system from, please? My installation (updated from Fedora 35 Silverblue) with gnome-software 42.0 does not exhibit the problem. |
|
I am experiencing the same thing. I rebased from 35 -> 36. This may be unrelated, but I've also noticed a lot of legacy apps are still around. For example, the old screenshots app is still around (along with the new one), and a lot of the apps that were updated with the new interface are still using the legacy interface (e.g. gedit). After running killall gnome-software
gnome-software --verboseI see this Homepage is also empty
And no repositories are found
|
|
I opened an upstream bug: |
|
Hi! I upgraded my Fedora Silverblue installation today, and I started experiencing this same error. It seems to me that it was not actually resolved, and that a different error was diagnosed. I upgraded from Do I need to share any log? If so, which one? Attaching some screenshots
|
|
I experience the same issue. |
Do you happen to know if it will be backported to version 42.1 of GNOME? |
|
No plans for backport. I suspect the real problem is elsewhere (the upstream fix will help to not always show the banner), the reason for this might be related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2083715 |
|
Thanks! It would be interesting to know if the issue is solved when the repository from Cisco is disabled. |
|
Same Problem here. Same error, repositories are not available and Gnome Software main page has unavailable apps. Updated from Silverblue 35 to Silverblue 36 today. OS is installed in VirtualBox |
I believe I switched off all the repositories except for LVFS and Flathub before the update and used the system like that up until I updated to 36. I still experienced the same bug |
|
Yes, you are right: I switched off the Cisco repository and rebased again, but it didn't help. I know get the following error: I will add it to the bug report on Bugzilla. |
|
Same issue here, I've been running the Silverblue 36 beta for a few weeks without any issues, but the final release today seems to have broken gnome-software for me. Running The same still happens when I disable the phracek-PyCharm repo, it just moves on to the next repo and throws the same error: |
|
@tpopela can we reopen this? Or maybe can we open a new issue that will not be closed as duplicated of this one? |
|
And I was thinking: maybe it's a SELinux issue? |
|
Same here! I think after updating the dnf-data and dnf-plugins-core packages this happened. |
|
I'm experiencing the same issues on a fresh install of FS36, build 36.20220510.0. Repos do not work and neither does the store. |
|
to rule out SELinux maybe just |
Tried this to no avail. I changed the policy and then tried both with and without rebooting but the store still fails. EDIT: |
|
the same here |
|
I see it on my system as well after updating to and with changelogs: |
|
Looking into the gnome-software code, the Software Repositories uses libdnf for its listing, not rpm-ostree. The diff from the previous comment shows an update of the libdnf and some related packages. The gnome-software updated too, but I do not think it caused it, because the related gnome-software code did not change since 2021-03-31. |
|
I moved the Red Hat bug into the libdnf and attached there a minimal reproducer, which uses only libdnf. |
|
I wanted to write/share that I just realize this issue. I never used gnome-software but now I opened and is just like the images above. I upgraded from F35 to F36 using the terminal with the command , and everyhting went ok and has been ok |
What you write is contradictory: "but now I opened and is just like the images above" vs "and everyhting went ok and has been ok". Could you elaborate about your situation? Do you still have the same problem or not (anymore)? |
|
Hi, I figured out today the workaround to this issue. Yes, it's libdnf and you can fix it by downgrading. I was instructed to first add bad karma to the libdnf update, but since the upstream issue is here, I should copy it here:
Basically The cleaning and refreshing of repo cache as well as deleting the gnome-software cache folder are just so everything is guaranteed to work. |
Maybe it's because I brought up the issue? I don't want to bring down the mood, but I think it would have been better if they had delayed the release until all GNOME application would have been upgraded to the latest release (see issue #273). After all that's the biggest change of Fedora 36. Having said that: I'm very happy with Fedora Silverblue overal 😃 l! |
Following this sequence of commands fixed it for me so thanks for that, I have no layered packages or overrides so that is probably why this worked for me pretty painlessly. |
|
@tpopela, refrain from ranting about my rant, then 🙃 |
|
I am also having this problem, but only with the ProtonVPN repo installed. With the repo removed everything works fine. |
It's not that important who brought up the issue.
Who's they? I'm a kind of representative of the Fedora project here (as a Silverblue's Product Owner).
Fedora SIlverblue isn't a blocking release deliverable so the whole Fedora Project won't block Fedora 36 release on any of the Silverblue issues (I suspect apart from those that could prevent the successful booting and so on). And shipping with older applications isn't a reason to block the release for additional weeks (I'm already working for nearly 3 weeks on creating the Fedora 36 Flatpak runtime and even tough I'm nearly done, there's still some work that needs to be done).
No it isn't and that's what Silverblue is trying to pioneer by decoupling the applications from the base operating system - it's the combination of both and with applications decoupled we can actually deliver one part of it (newer applications) into older Silverblue releases. This cycle it's a different though due to capacity problems (that you're aware of if you read the issue #273) |
|
This is a great time to chime in and say that if you like Silverblue we need help making it even better. Get involved and help steer the direction of it in the future. |
I discovered this problem on my newly rebased Fedora Silverblue 36, and after removing the Tailscale repo from |
Removing the Tailscale repo also solved this for me, too. Does anyone know why the Tailscale repo breaks GNOME Software, though? I'd like to continue receiving updates to Tailscale, so running without the repo installed is problematic. |
Could it be something with the repo not being ready for F36? https://pkgs.tailscale.com/stable/fedora/36/tailscale.repo returns a 404. While the same with 35 in the url returns a repo file. Not a user myself, so I'm only guessing. |
That could be the reason. My wild guess is:
|
Another solution would have been to mentioned the delayed GTK4 apps in the release notes (on the website silverblue.fedoraproject.org)? Something like: this release won't contain the new GTK4 applications of the GNOME desktop but we will update them in the coming weeks (after building the new Flatpak runtime environment). Having said that: thanks for your work on Fedora Silverblue!! I recently tried to promote Fedora Silverblue a bit by writing a short tutorial about how you can run Laravel (a PHP framework) with Podman on Fedora Silverblue. You can find the short tutorial here. |
Can confirm, for me it was Cloudflare's repo, which is actually for CentOS 8. Removed the repo, and I finally have working Software. |
I can't confirm yet, but it seems that the issue, at least for me and Tailscale, is related to gpg signature verification. Tailscale added a repo for F36 last night, so I re-added the repo and gnome-software is once again broken. This time, I've captured some logs that point in a new direction. The repo does have a gpg key: And if I disable if you're still having the problem, try running |
|
So, while the libdnf version mismatch between rpm-ostree and gnome-software issue is fixed, it seems some people are hitting a new issue where, due to incompatible repos, Gnome Software breaks again, and apparently rpm-ostree is also affected. Maybe it's actually a libdnf issue and you guys should report it there and also try to reproduce in Workstation? (likely dnf and gnome-software there are also affected). |
thanks, I found the same on the repo file but also found that gpgcheck was disabled, maybe they made a mistake so I enabled it and now also everything works |
|
Closing this issue as it has been resolved. If anyone is experiencing new issues as @MateusRodCosta is suggesting, please open a new one. |
|
So, what's actually broken, libdnf, gnome-software or the repos using EDIT: this needs to be reopened because the same repo file works on Workstation and not on Silverblue, so it's a bug, and quite annoying one to hit. |
Hi, it seems from your edit you did follow my suggestion from a while ago:
(Although you could likely have just used a Fedora 36 toolbox for that) Even then, the bug you are now hitting is still not this bug, as this one is about mismatched libdnf versions between g-s and rpm-ostree generating incompatible cached repo data which breaks g-s. But probably it's something likely related to rpm-ostree, however the only issue that seems related to this I can find there is coreos/rpm-ostree#2508. It seems that support for EDIT: Since it seems to only break Gnome Software and rpm-ostree from command line works fine, I would guess it's a bug somewhere else in the integration between rpm-ostree and gnome-software, either via libdnf or gnome-software-rpm-ostree. |
In that case I've opened #295 to track the issue about |
|
GNOME Software under Silverblue uses rpm-ostree and direct calls to libdnf, while GNOME Software under Workstation (and other spins) uses PackageKit, with no libdnf direct use. That explains the difference why the bug exhibits under Silverblue, but not under other spins. |
and others
Describe the bug
When you open Software and go to the Updates tab, you see an error: “Operating System Updates Unavailable: your operating system is no longer supported. This means that it does not receive security updates. It is recommended that you update to a more recent version.”
To Reproduce
Please describe the steps needed to reproduce the bug:
Expected behavior
The updates tab should not display an error message. You should be able to see the updates that were mentioned in the system notification that got you there.
Screenshots
OS version:
Additional context
I’d just installed the operating system and this was one of my first experiences.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: