Bug 101917

Summary: up2date not removing packages that are already installed
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Beta Reporter: Justin Churchey <sajchurchey>
Component: up2dateAssignee: Adrian Likins <alikins>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fanny Augustin <fmoquete>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: beta1CC: gafton, mihai.ibanescu
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: athlon   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-12-16 02:50:44 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 100644    

Description Justin Churchey 2003-08-08 00:38:25 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703

Description of problem:
When trying to run up2date, I get the following two updates:

aspell 0.50.3-15
xemacs-el 21.4.13-4

However, the Version and Old Version fields are identical.  When attempting to
update I get the following dialog box:

Test install failed because of package conflicts:
package aspell-0.50.3-15 is already installed
package xemacs-el-21.4.13-4 is already installed

If the packages are already installed, I do not see why they continue to come up
as packages to be updated.  They should not be on there at all.  I was wondering
if there was a problem w/ up2date reading the RPM tables .

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
up2date-3.1.46-2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Run up2date
2.Click Forward
3.Select the packages to be installed
4.Click Foward
    

Actual Results:  up2date reports that the packages are already installed even
though they are listed as out-of-date packages.

Expected Results:  up2date should not displayed packages that are already
installed on the system.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Adrian Likins 2003-09-15 21:31:43 UTC
is this still a problem with current code?

3.9 25 or higher should all be fine

There were some bugs with early version in the beta
miscalcuating needed packages. 



Comment 2 Justin Churchey 2003-09-15 23:08:31 UTC
Not sure if that is the problem right now.  My system has been down for
maintainance, and I have not been able to update any of the packages since I
installed the Beta.