Bug 3979

Summary: Upgrade from directory to file fails
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: dharris
Component: rpmAssignee: Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2001-01-09 16:26:26 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description dharris 1999-07-10 15:09:30 UTC
When a package has a member file which is a directory, and
a later release of the package has that same filename as a
regular file, the upgrade fails trying to unlink the
directory. RPM needs to be a tad smarter about removing the
existing files and directories.

Here's my test:

# rpm -qlp --dump testdirupgrade-1.0-1.i386.rpm
/testfile 1024 931618691  040755 root root 0 0 912 X
# rpm -qlp --dump testdirupgrade-2.0-1.i386.rpm
/testfile 0 931618699 d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
0100644 root root 0 0 912 X

As you can see, the testdirupgrade-1.0-1 package owns
"/testfile" as a directory, while the testdirupgrade-2.0-1
package owns it as a zero-length file.

Upgrading from directory to file is a problem:

# rpm -i testdirupgrade-1.0-1.i386.rpm
# rpm -U testdirupgrade-2.0-1.i386.rpm
can't unlink /testfile-RPMDELETE: Is a directory

However, upgrading from file to directory is just fine:

# rpm -e testdirupgrade
# rpm -i testdirupgrade-2.0-1.i386.rpm
# rpm -U testdirupgrade-1.0-1.i386.rpm --oldpackage

I've placed the .src.rpm files for these test packages on
up on web for your convenience..
http://www.davideous.com/misc/testdirupgrade-1.0-1.src.rpm
http://www.davideous.com/misc/testdirupgrade-2.0-1.src.rpm

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2001-01-09 16:26:14 UTC
*** Bug 13819 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2002-07-20 18:55:24 UTC
This is a variant of #61413

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 61413 ***