Bug 38349

Summary:	Duplicate RPM Database entries after upgrade from 6.2
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Need Real Name <pborghese>
Component:	anaconda	Assignee:	Brent Fox <bfox>
Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	7.1
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i686
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	Upgrade performed using 7.1 install procedures
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2001-05-09 16:42:44 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:

Description Need Real Name 2001-04-29 23:59:18 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)


I installed Redhat 6.2 using the "server" configuration then immedately 
upgraded to 7.1.  After the upgrade to 7.1 I noticed my RPM database has 
two entries, one for the older file, and a second for the new file.  So 
for example, Sendmail-8.9 and Sendmail-8.11 are both listed as being 
installed.  Likewise Apache 1.3.12 and 1.3.19 are also listed.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install RedHat 6.2 in Server configuration
2. Upgrade to Redhat 7.1
3. Type 'rpm -qa|grep sendmail' You will see two versions of sendmail 
listed.
	

Actual Results:  Duplicate entries are shown

Expected Results:  Only a single entry for the upgraded product.

I read in the RedHat message board someone else was experiencing the same 
results.

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2001-05-06 14:04:29 UTC

How did you upgrade? If you used --install/-i rather than --upgrade/-U, then
duplicate entries is exactly what is to be expected.

Comment 2 Need Real Name 2001-05-06 16:39:38 UTC

The upgrade was performed by booting the 7.1 installation disk and selecting 
upgrade.  Very similar to a new install but you select "upgrade" instead 
of "install".

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2001-05-06 16:43:20 UTC

OK, off to anaconda to find out what's up. I certainly haven't heard of this
problem before ...

Comment 4 Brent Fox 2001-05-09 16:42:39 UTC

I set up a test machine with a fresh server install of 6.2.  I then immediately
upgraded to 7.1...the RPM database looks fine...no duplicate entries.