Noticed today that yum (or yumex, I barely use pirut) has been leaving multiple version of software installed, just to be clear this isn't a i386 and an x86_64 version of the same package, it is two numerically different versions.
This has been affected about 50 packages in total, some lib*, lots of gnome*, some xorg and a few *.noarch, so no particular area.
I have had a few yum updates hang (due to the gcj-dbtool hanging?) so this might explain it, I've manually tided up the dupes now.
Since I can't say what brought this on and can't repoduce it at the moment, I'm not planning to bugzilla it, unless anyone else sees it too, or thinks it is significant enough to warrant a bugzilla?
On 1/31/06, Andy Burns fedora@adslpipe.co.uk wrote:
i386 and an x86_64 version of the same package, it is two numerically different versions.
Weird. YUM is configured to only leave 2 versions of the software; check the plugins directory under /etc/yum*
-- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
Andy Burns wrote:
Noticed today that yum (or yumex, I barely use pirut) has been leaving multiple version of software installed, just to be clear this isn't a i386 and an x86_64 version of the same package, it is two numerically different versions.
This has been affected about 50 packages in total, some lib*, lots of gnome*, some xorg and a few *.noarch, so no particular area.
I have had a few yum updates hang (due to the gcj-dbtool hanging?) so this might explain it, I've manually tided up the dupes now.
Since I can't say what brought this on and can't repoduce it at the moment, I'm not planning to bugzilla it, unless anyone else sees it too, or thinks it is significant enough to warrant a bugzilla?
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179410
Happened to me as well... more than just dup packages caused foomatic not to install all its bits and system-config-printer broke along with some other apps. Had rpm -e --nodeps <package> and yum install <package> to fix it.
Pete
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:23 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
Noticed today that yum (or yumex, I barely use pirut) has been leaving multiple version of software installed, just to be clear this isn't a i386 and an x86_64 version of the same package, it is two numerically different versions.
This tends to happen if there are scriptlet failures or if you have to kill the updater (since the update and then remove operations are somewhat separate). The SELinux problems of late have been making scriptlet failures more common :-/
Jeremy
On 2/1/06, Jeremy Katz katzj@redhat.com wrote:
This tends to happen if there are scriptlet failures or if you have to kill the updater (since the update and then remove operations are somewhat separate). The SELinux problems of late have been making scriptlet failures more common :-/
Is it possible to make rpm updates an atomic operation? Will it be one day?
n0dalus.
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:23 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
Noticed today that yum (or yumex, I barely use pirut) has been leaving multiple version of software installed, just to be clear this isn't a i386 and an x86_64 version of the same package, it is two numerically different versions.
This has been affected about 50 packages in total, some lib*, lots of gnome*, some xorg and a few *.noarch, so no particular area.
I have had a few yum updates hang (due to the gcj-dbtool hanging?) so this might explain it, I've manually tided up the dupes now.
Since I can't say what brought this on and can't repoduce it at the moment, I'm not planning to bugzilla it, unless anyone else sees it too, or thinks it is significant enough to warrant a bugzilla?
The included script helps cleaning up. It removes the older duplicate and rpm verifies the current one. No warranty expressed or implied. It works for me but I could be living in ignorant bliss...
tjb
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 15:34 -0500, Thomas J. Baker wrote:
The included script helps cleaning up. It removes the older duplicate and rpm verifies the current one. No warranty expressed or implied. It works for me but I could be living in ignorant bliss...
tjb
That will give x86_64 users a bit of trouble. We are supposed to have packages of the same name but different architectures.
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 15:58 -0500, Kevin H. Hobbs wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 15:34 -0500, Thomas J. Baker wrote:
The included script helps cleaning up. It removes the older duplicate and rpm verifies the current one. No warranty expressed or implied. It works for me but I could be living in ignorant bliss...
tjb
That will give x86_64 users a bit of trouble. We are supposed to have packages of the same name but different architectures.
This should be x86_64 compatible although I don't have any broken x86_64 systems to test it on!
tjb -- ======================================================================= | Thomas Baker email: tjb@unh.edu | | Systems Programmer | | Research Computing Center voice: (603) 862-4490 | | University of New Hampshire fax: (603) 862-1761 | | 332 Morse Hall | | Durham, NH 03824 USA http://wintermute.sr.unh.edu/~tjb | =======================================================================
-
Andy Burns -
Chasecreek Systemhouse -
Jeremy Katz -
Kevin H. Hobbs -
n0dalus -
Pete Graner -
Thomas J. Baker