Bug 428773
| Summary: | yum update file checksum mismatches detected | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Philip Ashmore <contact> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 8 | CC: | ffesti, james.antill, katzj, pmatilai, pnasrat, tim.lauridsen |
| 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: | 2009-01-09 05:47:30 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: | |||
reassigning to rpm since yum isn't touching the files or modifying the rpmdb beyond what it asks rpmlib to do. The original binaries have been prelinked at some point, but prelink is missing so rpm can't do auto-correction. This is the same on any system: [root@localhost ~]# rpm -V ed [root@localhost ~]# rpm -e prelink [root@localhost ~]# rpm -V ed S.5..... /bin/ed S.5..... /bin/red [root@localhost ~]# The newly installed files in your case don't show any differences here because they're not been prelinked (and wont be, since there's no prelink installed). Philip, have you manually removed prelink at some point? If not, lets reassign to livecd-tools... The live images aren't prelinked Oh ok... I did a test installation of the KDE livecd myself. The original binaries on the livecd aren't prelinked, and immediately after installation rpm -V shows nothing. But prelink is on the installed image so the system will get prelinked eventually. And if you then remove prelink, you'll get size + md5 mismatch on rpm verify. It's possible there is some other path leading to this, but this is the most obvious one. Panu - to answer your question - no I never removed prelink. Whatever the problem was, it seems to be fixed now, see below. # sh /etc/cron.daily/prelink # rpm -Va ....L... d /usr/share/javadoc/java S.5....T c /etc/cups/printers.conf prelink: /usr/bin/imlib_config: at least one of file's dependencies has changed since prelinking S.?..... /usr/bin/imlib_config S.5....T c /var/log/mail/statistics S.5....T /usr/lib/python2.5/distutils/sysconfig.pyc S.5....T c /etc/sane.d/dll.conf S.5....T /etc/cron.d/smolt S.5....T c /etc/maven/maven2-depmap.xml S.5..UGT c /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo ..5....T c /usr/lib/security/classpath.security prelink: /usr/lib/libopenal.so.0.0.0: at least one of file's dependencies has changed since prelinking S.?..... /usr/lib/libopenal.so.0.0.0 .......T c /root/.bash_logout .......T c /root/.bash_profile S.5....T c /root/.bashrc S.5....T c /etc/pcmcia/config.opts Unsatisfied dependencies for pyclutter-0.4.2-2.fc8.i386: libclutter-glx-0.4.so.0 ....L... c /etc/pam.d/system-auth S.5....T c /etc/security/limits.conf .......T /usr/share/icons/crystalsvg/16x16/apps/kandy.png .......T /usr/share/icons/crystalsvg/32x32/apps/kandy.png .......T /usr/share/icons/crystalsvg/48x48/apps/kandy.png S.5....T c /etc/printcap S.5....T c /etc/hibernate/common.conf S.5....T c /etc/hibernate/suspend2.conf .......T /usr/lib/pm-utils/defaults S.5....T c /etc/xml/catalog S.5....T c /usr/share/sgml/docbook/xmlcatalog S.5..UGT /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so .M...... /bin/fusermount S.5..UGT c /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-development.repo S.5..UGT c /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo S.5..UGT c /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates.repo S.5..UGT c /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo .......T /usr/share/applications/screensavers/system.desktop S.5....T c /etc/sysconfig/system-config-users .......T /var/log/tomcat5/catalina.out ..5....T c /etc/inittab S.5....T c /etc/rc.d/rc.local This message is a reminder that Fedora 8 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 8. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '8'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 8's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 8 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 8 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-01-07. Fedora 8 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |
Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install Fedora 8 from the original KDE live CD. 2. rpm -Va >rpm1.txt # show the checksum mismatches 3. remove and install a package (e.g. ed) 4. rpm -Va >rpm2.txt # show the checksum mismatches 5. diff rpm1.txt rpm2.txt # show that the ed binaries are not listed. Actual results: 2245,2246d2244 < S.5..... /bin/ed < S.5..... /bin/red Expected results: There shouldn't be any difference - there shouldn't be any checksum or size mismatches. Additional info: This was after I ran # rpm --rebuilddb