Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 112358

Summary:	'rpmdb: Program version 4.2 doesn't match environment version'
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide	Reporter:	Tim Waugh <twaugh>
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME	QA Contact:	Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	1.0	CC:	john.ellson, nobody+pnasrat
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:	2003-12-18 12:35:37 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 Tim Waugh 2003-12-18 12:00:37 UTC

Description of problem:
The rpm-4.2.2-0.5 package fails to function with db4-4.1.25-14
installed, giving lots of errors when trying to upgrade packages etc.

Maybe it needs to have a conflicts: or requires:?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.2.2-0.5
db4-4.1.25-14

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Upgrade rpm but not db4.

Comment 1 Paul Nasrat 2003-12-18 12:10:22 UTC

Note working fine here under 2.4.22-1.2132.nptl  + ea patch and glibc
2.3.3-1

rpm-4.2.2-0.6 (from cvs.colug.net)
db4-4.1.25-14

Going to test against a vanilla 2.6.0 kernel shortly.

Should add twaugh was seeing these errors:

error: db4 error(22) from dbenv->open: Invalid argument
error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm

and

'rpmdb: Program version 4.2 doesn't match environment version'

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2003-12-18 12:17:19 UTC

Try
    rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db*

This is done in %post, but there was a build of -0.5
that did not have /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdb_stat in the rpm
package where needed. I suspect sopwith grabbed that.

Does that fix?

Comment 3 Tim Waugh 2003-12-18 12:33:17 UTC

Yes, that fixes it.  Thanks.

Comment 4 Jeff Johnson 2003-12-18 12:35:37 UTC

OK. A shame that the later -0.5 wasn't grabbed. Oh well, -0.6 today.

Comment 5 Jeff Johnson 2003-12-18 17:41:34 UTC

*** Bug 112378 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***