Bug 180996

The warning and the error have different causes.

The warning is for a replacement of one package with another, names must be unique in a transaction.

The error is from (probably) a package with an intact header but a truncated payload.

n3npq said: "The error is from (probably) a package with an intact header but a
truncated payload."

That turns out not to be the case.
  $ rpm --checksig core4up/x86_64/kernel-2.6.15-1.1831_FC4.x86_64.rpm
  core4up/x86_64/kernel-2.6.15-1.1831_FC4.x86_64.rpm: (sha1) dsa sha1 md5 gpg OK

If the two diagnostics are reporting different errors (that makes sense), then
the second report needs to be more clear.  A user confronted with that message
has no hint as to what the problem is.  Even n3npq interpreted it incorrectly.

I guessed and ma known to make mistakes.

What version of rpm?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.4.1-22

RH's problem, not mine, then.

kernels should be installed not upgraded - use -ivh.

Yes, kernels should be installed.  But this problem has nothing to do with the
fact that the particular rpm was a kernel.

Here is another example, using a non-kernel rpm.  The first commandss are just
to put the last command in context.  Notice that the diagnostic from the first
"rpm -Uv" does not appear in the second's output.  [I've added a blank line
before each shell prompt to ease reading.]

# rpm -q xpdf
xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8

# rpm -Uv core4up/x86_64/xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8.x86_64.rpm
Preparing packages for installation...
        package xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8 is already installed

# rpm -Uv core4up/x86_64/xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8.x86_64.rpm \
> core4up/x86_64/xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8.x86_64.rpm
warning: package xpdf = 1:3.01-0.FC4.8 was already added, skipping xpdf <
1:3.01-0.FC4.8
error: error reading from file core4up/x86_64/xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8.x86_64.rpm

# 

rpm --qf '%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n' -q xpdf

On same system, in same state:
$ rpm --qf '%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n' -q xpdf
xpdf-3.01-0.FC4.8.x86_64

Fixed (by treating consistently as a warning) in rpm cvs, should be in rpm-4.4.8-0.10 when built.

Note that the behavior depends on the value of %_transaction_color.

Here's what is implemented in rpm-4.4.8-0.10:

# rpm -E '%{_transaction_color}'
3
# rpm -Uvh time-*
error: Failed dependencies:
        libc.so.6()(64bit) is needed by time-1.7-27.x86_64
        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) is needed by time-1.7-27.x86_64
        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) is needed by time-1.7-27.x86_64
# vi /usr/lib/rpm/macros
# rpm -E '%{_transaction_color}'
0
# rpm -Uvh time-*
warning: package file time-1.7-27.x86_64.rpm was skipped
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:time                     ########################################### [100%]

UPSTREAM

This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd.

Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and
either update the target product or close it ?

Thanks.

This problem is still in F7 (rpm-4.4.2-46.fc7).

Fixed upstream and rawhide, F7 should get 4.4.2.2 once final is out

rpm-4.4.2.2-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpm'

rpm-4.4.2.2-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.