Quantcast

yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

Matthew Miller
This is with yum-3.2.11-1.fc9.noarch and rawhide. Look how it says it
updated xulrunner when it really didn't. Is skip-broken to blame?


$ sudo yum upgrade
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, changelog, fastestmirror, protect-packages,
              : refresh-packagekit
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * livna-development: rpm.livna.org
 * adobe-linux-i386: linuxdownload.adobe.com
 * development: mirror.cs.princeton.edu
livna-development         100% |=========================| 2.1 kB    00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2        100% |=========================| 126 kB    00:00
adobe-linux-i386          100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
ftp://mirror.cs.princeton.edu/pub/mirrors/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 4] IOError: [Errno ftp error] 421 Sorry, mirror already has 28 users logged on.  Try again in 10 minutes.
Trying other mirror.
development               100% |=========================| 2.1 kB    00:00
Setting up Upgrade Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package libmikmod.i386 0:3.2.0-1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: SDL_mixer
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: xmms-libs
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: fbg
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: uqm
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: ClanLib06
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 (installed)
SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 (installed)
ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 (installed)
fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 (installed)
1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package 1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package 1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 (installed)
$ sudo yum upgrade --skip-broken
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, changelog, fastestmirror, protect-packages,
              : refresh-packagekit
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * livna-development: rpm.livna.org
 * adobe-linux-i386: linuxdownload.adobe.com
 * development: mirror.cs.princeton.edu
Setting up Upgrade Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package libmikmod.i386 0:3.2.0-1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: SDL_mixer
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: xmms-libs
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: fbg
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: uqm
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: ClanLib06
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 (installed)
SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 (installed)
ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 (installed)
fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 (installed)
1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package 1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 (installed)
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3 for package: mikmod
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 from development has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3 is needed by package mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 (development)
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Packages skipped because of dependency problems:
    libmikmod-3.2.0-1.fc9.i386 from development
    mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 from development

Dependencies Resolved

=============================================================================
 Package                 Arch       Version          Repository        Size
=============================================================================
Updating:
 xulrunner               i386       1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9  development       9.5 M

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================
Install      0 Package(s)
Update       1 Package(s)
Remove       0 Package(s)

Total size: 9.5 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Test Succeeded
Running Transaction
  Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
Error unpacking rpm package xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
Unable to send message to PackageKit

Updated: xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9
Complete!
$ sudo yum clean all
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, changelog, fastestmirror, protect-packages,
              : refresh-packagekit
Cleaning up Everything
Cleaning up list of fastest mirrors
$ sudo yum upgrade --skip-broken
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, changelog, fastestmirror, protect-packages,
              : refresh-packagekit
Determining fastest mirrors
 * livna-development: rpm.livna.org
 * adobe-linux-i386: linuxdownload.adobe.com
 * development: mirror.cs.princeton.edu
livna-development         100% |=========================| 2.1 kB    00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2        100% |=========================| 126 kB    00:00
adobe-linux-i386          100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
primary.xml.gz            100% |=========================|  10 kB    00:00
adobe-linu: ################################################## 17/17
ftp://mirror.cs.princeton.edu/pub/mirrors/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 4] IOError: [Errno ftp error] 421 Sorry, mirror already has 20 users logged on.  Try again in 10 minutes.
Trying other mirror.
development               100% |=========================| 2.1 kB    00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2        100% |=========================| 5.9 MB    00:37
Setting up Upgrade Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package libmikmod.i386 0:3.2.0-1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: SDL_mixer
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: xmms-libs
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: fbg
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: uqm
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: ClanLib06
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 (installed)
SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 (installed)
ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 (installed)
fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 (installed)
1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package 1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 (installed)
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3 for package: mikmod
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 from development has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3 is needed by package mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 (development)
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Packages skipped because of dependency problems:
    libmikmod-3.2.0-1.fc9.i386 from development
    mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 from development

Dependencies Resolved

=============================================================================
 Package                 Arch       Version          Repository        Size
=============================================================================
Updating:
 xulrunner               i386       1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9  development       9.5 M

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================
Install      0 Package(s)
Update       1 Package(s)
Remove       0 Package(s)

Total download size: 9.5 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
(1/1): xulrunner-1.9-0.be 100% |=========================| 9.5 MB    01:00
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Test Succeeded
Running Transaction
  Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
Error unpacking rpm package xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
Unable to send message to PackageKit

Updated: xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9
Complete!
$ ls -l /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries
total 604
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   3060 2008-01-21 21:50 en-US.aff
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 609624 2007-12-11 04:59 en-US.dic
$ rpm -q xulrunner
xulrunner-1.9-0.beta2.18.nightly20080210.fc9.i386
$ sudo rm -rf /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries
$ sudo yum upgrade --skip-broken
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, changelog, fastestmirror, protect-packages,
              : refresh-packagekit
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * livna-development: rpm.livna.org
 * adobe-linux-i386: linuxdownload.adobe.com
 * development: mirror.cs.princeton.edu
Setting up Upgrade Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package libmikmod.i386 0:3.2.0-1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: SDL_mixer
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: xmms-libs
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: fbg
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: uqm
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 for package: ClanLib06
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package uqm-0.6.2-2.fc8.i386 (installed)
SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package SDL_mixer-1.2.8-7.fc9.i386 (installed)
ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package ClanLib06-0.6.5-10.fc9.i386 (installed)
fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package fbg-0.9.1-1.fc8.i386 (installed)
1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.2 is needed by package 1:xmms-libs-1.2.10-36.fc7.i386 (installed)
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
---> Package mikmod.i386 0:3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3 for package: mikmod
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 from development has depsolving problems
  --> Missing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3 is needed by package mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 (development)
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Packages skipped because of dependency problems:
    libmikmod-3.2.0-1.fc9.i386 from development
    mikmod-3.2.2-7.beta1.fc9.i386 from development

Dependencies Resolved

=============================================================================
 Package                 Arch       Version          Repository        Size
=============================================================================
Updating:
 xulrunner               i386       1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9  development       9.5 M

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================
Install 0 Package(s) Update 1 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s)

Total size: 9.5 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Test Succeeded
Running Transaction
  Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
  Cleanup   : xulrunner                    ######################### [2/2]
Unable to send message to PackageKit

Updated: xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9
Complete!
$

--
Matthew Miller           [hidden email]          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

David Timms
Matthew Miller wrote:
> This is with yum-3.2.11-1.fc9.noarch and rawhide. Look how it says it
> updated xulrunner when it really didn't. Is skip-broken to blame?
Don't know. Is it repeatable ?
...
> Running Transaction
>   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> Error unpacking rpm package xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
> Unable to send message to PackageKit

Out of disk space ?
Corrupt download ? Is it in the yum cache, and does it open OK with say
file-roller ? There is probably a better test of the downloaded {do you
have keepcache=1 set} rpm ?

DaveT.
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

seth vidal-3
In reply to this post by Matthew Miller

On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 07:35 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> This is with yum-3.2.11-1.fc9.noarch and rawhide. Look how it says it
> updated xulrunner when it really didn't. Is skip-broken to blame?
>
>   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> Error unpacking rpm package
> xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> error: unpacking of archive failed on
> file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
> Unable to send message to PackageKit

Yah what a fun time. So, unless I'm mistaken, rpm is failing to handle
something in the installation of that package and it is not reporting it
as fatal to the transaction. We have this problem, often, with
scriptlets aborting in %post.


You might want to check to see if something is wrong on the computer,
too b/c package errors shouldn't actually be possible.

-sv


_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

Matthew Miller
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:28:54AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:

> > This is with yum-3.2.11-1.fc9.noarch and rawhide. Look how it says it
> > updated xulrunner when it really didn't. Is skip-broken to blame?
> >
> >   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> > Error unpacking rpm package
> > xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> > error: unpacking of archive failed on
> > file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
> > Unable to send message to PackageKit
> Yah what a fun time. So, unless I'm mistaken, rpm is failing to handle
> something in the installation of that package and it is not reporting it
> as fatal to the transaction. We have this problem, often, with
> scriptlets aborting in %post.

I probably should have pointed this out, but I know what the specific
problem is -- in the old package, /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries is
a directory, and in the new one it's a symlink. There's some sort of
longstanding RPM bug in this case.

If you look in the middle of all of the output I sent, deleting the
problematic directory with rm -rf before running yum causes everything to
work as it should.

So, yeah, while the underlying bug is concerning, I'm, for the purposes of
this mailing list, mostly worried that yum appeared to think that the
upgrade succeeded when really it failed.


--
Matthew Miller           [hidden email]          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

seth vidal-3

On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 16:43 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:28:54AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > This is with yum-3.2.11-1.fc9.noarch and rawhide. Look how it says it
> > > updated xulrunner when it really didn't. Is skip-broken to blame?
> > >
> > >   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> > > Error unpacking rpm package
> > > xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> > > error: unpacking of archive failed on
> > > file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
> > > Unable to send message to PackageKit
> > Yah what a fun time. So, unless I'm mistaken, rpm is failing to handle
> > something in the installation of that package and it is not reporting it
> > as fatal to the transaction. We have this problem, often, with
> > scriptlets aborting in %post.
>
> I probably should have pointed this out, but I know what the specific
> problem is -- in the old package, /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries is
> a directory, and in the new one it's a symlink. There's some sort of
> longstanding RPM bug in this case.
>
> If you look in the middle of all of the output I sent, deleting the
> problematic directory with rm -rf before running yum causes everything to
> work as it should.
>
> So, yeah, while the underlying bug is concerning, I'm, for the purposes of
> this mailing list, mostly worried that yum appeared to think that the
> upgrade succeeded when really it failed.
>

yes, rpm gives us no way of knowing otherwise in the python layer,

-sv


_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

Matthew Miller
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 06:07:14PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > >   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> > > > Error unpacking rpm package
> > > > xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> > > > error: unpacking of archive failed on
> > > > file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
[...]
> yes, rpm gives us no way of knowing otherwise in the python layer,

That's so nice of RPM. Is there an open bug for this general issue?

Failing that, I guess a plugin could check to see if what was claimed to be
installed is actually installed when the transaction is done....

--
Matthew Miller           [hidden email]          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

Matthew Miller
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:51:45PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > >   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> > > > > Error unpacking rpm package
> > > > > xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> > > > > error: unpacking of archive failed on
> > > > > file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
> [...]
> > yes, rpm gives us no way of knowing otherwise in the python layer,
> That's so nice of RPM. Is there an open bug for this general issue?

<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=216221>

is it, I suppose. So anyway, not a Yum problem intrinsically, but something
we need to get fixed in RPM. With the new world order there, is it
reasonable to wait for that, or should I work on the double-check plugin?

> Failing that, I guess a plugin could check to see if what was claimed to be
> installed is actually installed when the transaction is done....

--
Matthew Miller           [hidden email]          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: yum 3.2.11 (fedora rawhide) erroneous success message

seth vidal-3

On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:49 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:51:45PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > > >   Updating  : xulrunner                    ######################### [1/2]
> > > > > > Error unpacking rpm package
> > > > > > xulrunner-1.9-0.beta3.22.nightly20080215.fc9.i386
> > > > > > error: unpacking of archive failed on
> > > > > > file /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/dictionaries: cpio: rename
> > [...]
> > > yes, rpm gives us no way of knowing otherwise in the python layer,
> > That's so nice of RPM. Is there an open bug for this general issue?
>
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=216221>
>
> is it, I suppose. So anyway, not a Yum problem intrinsically, but something
> we need to get fixed in RPM. With the new world order there, is it
> reasonable to wait for that, or should I work on the double-check plugin?

The easiest bit might be to see what we have with the logging objects
and see if we can piece together the items that clearly are broken.

-sv

--
I only speak for me.

_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
Loading...