Bug 143914

Summary: x86_64 FC2 -> FC3 update fails: change of arch
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Richard Hill <plonta>
Component: anacondaAssignee: Paul Nasrat <pnasrat>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact: Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3CC: pnasrat
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-02-14 04:16:47 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Richard Hill 2005-01-01 09:59:00 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.6)
Gecko/20040510

Description of problem:
I have FC2 (X86_64) and I'm trying to upgrade to FC3 (X86_64) and
always get the error -

"The arch of the release of Fedora Core you are upgrading to appears
to be i386 which does not match your previously installed arch of X86_64."

The FC3 DVD image is definately x86_64.






Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. FC2 -> FC3 update on x86_64
2.
3.
    

Additional info:

rpm -q --qf "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}" initscripts
initscripts-7.53-1.i386initscripts-7.53-1.x86_64

If I ignore the error, anaconda segfaults during "Preparing to
install" (but this happens during a full install also - seperate bug
reported)

cat .discinfo
1099519842.860000
Fedora Core 3
x86_64
1,2,3,4
Fedora/base
Fedora/RPMS
Fedora/pixmaps


extract from update.log
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-kde', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-qt', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-text', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-gnome', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-kde', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-qt', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.
Upgrade Dependency: Needs (('licq-text', '1.2.7', '3'),
('libstdc++.so.5(GLIBCPP_3.2.2)(64bit)', None), 0, None, 0),
automatically added.

Comment 1 Paul Nasrat 2005-01-04 16:12:27 UTC
Out of curiosity what updater do you use (yum/up2date)? Can you attach the
appropriate configuration (/etc/yum.conf, /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources).

I can see why the failure is occuring but I'm curious as to how you ended up
with an i386 initscripts, it's possibly you're pointing at the all arch header
list rather than the per-arch subtree.

Comment 2 Richard Hill 2005-01-04 17:02:34 UTC
I'm doing an upgrade from the install DVD, so I presume yum doesn't come
into it? FC2 was also an full installation from the FC2 DVD.

Maybe it's getting confused because I also have an FC3 (32 bit) on another 
disk ?  (But I did select the correct partition when asked which partition I'd 
like to upgrade)


Comment 3 Paul Nasrat 2005-01-04 18:26:51 UTC
However you state when booted into FC2 x86_64 you have:

rpm -q --qf "[%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n]" initscripts
initscripts-7.53-1.i386
initscripts-7.53-1.x86_64

Can you confirm that my understanding is correct.

The tree should just have x86_64

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/2/x86_64/os/Fedora/RPMS/

I've checked the DVD iso image - it only has the x86_64 version on

I want to confirm that the rpmdb of your x86_64 has that and why.  I pretty much
know what to fix anaconda side, but I want to understand the path you've taken
to get to this.  Was this an upgrade from fc1?  

Comment 4 Richard Hill 2005-01-05 13:39:57 UTC
I checked again.  Yes both versions of initscripts are installed.
I cannot say how.  I installed FC2 from DVD.  I didn't do any 
updates.  Now I'm trying to install FC3 from DVD.  FC2 was the
first install on this system.  FC1 was never there.

I do have FC3 (32 bit) on another partition, but this was never on 
the partition where X86_64 is.

Might be better to just do a full FC3 install ?

Comment 5 Paul Nasrat 2005-02-14 04:16:47 UTC
Sorry for the delay - rpm -e initscripts.i386 --justdb should enable you to upgrade.

I'm still can't see how you got both initscripts installed though.  I'm going to
close this, but please re-open if you can reproduce getting both initscripts
installed.