Bug 513972
Summary: | Cannot install pkg from http when chroot is used | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Petr Sklenar <psklenar> |
Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Florian Festi <ffesti> |
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 5.4 | CC: | ffesti |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-09-24 13:24:48 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: | 500798 |
Description
Petr Sklenar
2009-07-27 11:18:41 UTC
Does "mkdir /tmp/chroot/tmp" fix the problem? no, it doesn't rpm-libs-4.4.2.3-18.el5 redhat-rpm-config-8.0.45-32.el5 rpm-4.4.2.3-18.el5 rpm-build-4.4.2.3-18.el5 rpm-python-4.4.2.3-18.el5 rpm-devel-4.4.2.3-18.el5 rpm-libs-4.4.2.3-18.el5 rpm-devel-4.4.2.3-18.el5 # ls /tmp/chroot/ tmp [root@dhcp-lab-159 ~]# chmod 777 /tmp/chroot/tmp [root@dhcp-lab-159 ~]# rpm -ivh --root /tmp/chroot --nodeps http://download.englab.brq.redhat.com/pub/rhel/nightly/RHEL5.4-Server-latest/tree-x86_64/Server/fonts-ISO8859-2-1.0-17.1.noarch.rpm Retrieving http://download.englab.brq.redhat.com/pub/rhel/nightly/RHEL5.4-Server-latest/tree-x86_64/Server/fonts-ISO8859-2-1.0-17.1.noarch.rpm error: skipping http://download.englab.brq.redhat.com/pub/rhel/nightly/RHEL5.4-Server-latest/tree-x86_64/Server/fonts-ISO8859-2-1.0-17.1.noarch.rpm - transfer failed - Unknown or unexpected error Download handling has completely been rewritten in 4.6 so back porting a fix is not an option. As the problem is a bit more than just a missing directory (as a comment in the code suggests) I guess best option is to just close this issue. Anyway, thanks for reporting and testing! Feel free to reopen if there is a use case justifying putting more effort into this. |