workaround for 116299? ("Obsoletes:" problem in rpm)
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
Hi all... anyone has any idea on how I could work around bug 116299?
(see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299)
Basically (in FC1), in certain instances the "Obsoletes:" tag is being
ignored by rpm in such a way that I cannot change the naming of a
package (ie: if I try to install the new package, which "Obsoletes:"
another older package with almost the same contents but a different
name, the rpm process fails with a "conflicting files" message instead
of replacing the old package with the new one).
Maybe I'm making some packaging mistake, but the exact same thing works
fine in RedHat 7.3/8.0/9...
-- Fernando
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 23:39, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Hi all... anyone has any idea on how I could work around bug 116299?
(see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299)
Basically (in FC1), in certain instances the "Obsoletes:" tag is being
ignored by rpm in such a way that I cannot change the naming of a
package (ie: if I try to install the new package, which "Obsoletes:"
another older package with almost the same contents but a different
name, the rpm process fails with a "conflicting files" message instead
of replacing the old package with the new one).
I think...
$ rpm -e oldpackage --nodeps
$ rpm -ihv newpackage
should work...
Maybe I'm making some packaging mistake, but the exact same thing
works
fine in RedHat 7.3/8.0/9...
-- Fernando
- --
Regards,
Doncho N. Gunchev Registered Linux User #291323 at counter.li.org
GPG-Key-ID: 1024D/DA454F79
Key fingerprint = 684F 688B C508 C609 0371 5E0F A089 CB15 DA45 4F79
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAPHfPoInLFdpFT3kRAnBGAKCT49R0Hxlh812l5wbsxwmRYD0dtwCfZ8x1
UDBWp3QvLQbU1LKbyhKQzk8=
=AwUo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Hi all... anyone has any idea on how I could work around bug
116299?
> (see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299)
>
> Basically (in FC1), in certain instances the "Obsoletes:" tag is being
> ignored by rpm in such a way that I cannot change the naming of a
> package (ie: if I try to install the new package, which "Obsoletes:"
> another older package with almost the same contents but a different
> name, the rpm process fails with a "conflicting files" message instead
> of replacing the old package with the new one).
>
I think...
$ rpm -e oldpackage --nodeps
$ rpm -ihv newpackage
should work...
Thanks but sorry, I should have added some context. The packages are
coming from an apt repository (Planet CCRMA) and users should not need
to do manual rpm operations to upgrade...
There is a little bit more information in the bugzilla report now,
apparently the file conflict only happens if the binaries that conflict
are different (the new from the old). If they are _exactly_ the same the
upgrade proceeds normally and the obsoleted package is erased. That
would seem to suggest that the test for conflicting flies (inside rpm)
is being done before rpm realizes that one package obsoletes the other.
Weird.
-- Fernando
7373
days inactive
7374
days old
2 comments
2 participants
tags (0)
participants (2)
-
Doncho N. Gunchev -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano