Bug 60964

Summary: Hampton B2 - upgrade misses installed LPRng package
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: R P Herrold <herrold>
Component: anacondaAssignee: Michael Fulbright <msf>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.3   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-03-11 20:47:12 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
rpm -qa listing -- note dupe entry none

Description R P Herrold 2002-03-10 20:21:32 UTC
Hampton Beta 2

Upgrade

-- did not spot a prior version and remove it -- installed another over top ...

LPRng-3.8.5-2
LPRng-3.8.7-2

... possible RPM database error ?

----------------------------

Which MAY be causing this error:


Subject: lpd-B2

Stopping lpd: ^[[60G[^[[1;31mFAILED^[[0;39m]
Starting lpd: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/sbin/printconf-backend", line 7, in ?
    import printconf_backend
  File "/usr/share/printconf/util/printconf_backend.py", line 29, in ?
    from printconf_conf import *
  File "/usr/share/printconf/util/printconf_conf.py", line 82, in ?
    from xml.utils import qp_xml
ImportError: No module named utils
No Printers Defined^[[60G[  ^[[1;32mOK^[[0;39m  ]

----------------------

I have a full rpm -qa | sort 

will attach in a moment

Comment 1 R P Herrold 2002-03-10 20:22:24 UTC
Created attachment 48068 [details]
rpm -qa listing -- note dupe entry

Comment 2 Jeremy Katz 2002-03-11 20:00:36 UTC
What were you upgrading from?  The only place I see a 3.8.5-2 is in the old
Hampton beta.  

Now then, where's my wet noodle? ;-)

If you look in your upgrade.log, though, you'll probably see that a %pre or
%post failed due to the changing environment that was going on.  There's a
reason we said beta 1 to beta 2 upgrades weren't supported.

Comment 3 R P Herrold 2002-03-11 20:47:07 UTC
... I plead youthful enthusiasm, and long service. <grin>

RH 7.1 patched current -> Hampton B1 -> Hampton B2

But I filed against anaconda rather than LprNG -- it looks like an 
RPM transaction set generated by anaconda did not pick up and add the
remove of the prior version.  and that is a generic Upgrade failure, 
rather than H-B1 -> H-B2 related, is it not?

A LprNG filing _would_ have have earned the noodle. <smile>

Comment 4 Jeremy Katz 2002-03-12 00:52:02 UTC
No, we always add packages with "u" to the transaction set which is upgrade. 
But if scriptlets fail, then you'll regularly get the double package install
phenomena.

And anaconda is especially where beta 1 -> beta 2 "upgrades" can't be supported :)