Bug 116507 - (IT_44731) rpm -q -redhatprovides fails after Q3 update
rpm -q -redhatprovides fails after Q3 update
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rpmdb-redhat (Show other bugs)
2.1
i686 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: John Flanagan
:
: 117944 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 132992
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-02-21 20:11 EST by Richard Newbigin
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:06 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-05-06 11:16:16 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Richard Newbigin 2004-02-21 20:11:51 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2)
Gecko/20031013

Description of problem:
The update seems to use a new rpmdb format which is not compatible
with either rpm or db3


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpmdb-redhat-2.1ES-0.20031215

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install ES2.1 & rpmdb-redhat
2. Update to latest rpmdb-redhat
3. run rpm -q -redhatprovides rpm
    

Actual Results:  rpmdb:
/usr/lib/rpmdb/i386-redhat-linux/redhat/Packages: unsupported hash
version: 8
error: cannot open Packages index using db3 - Invalid argument (22)


Expected Results:  rpm-4.0.4-7x.20

Additional info:

AFAIK, the rpmdb should be in Berkeley DB (Hash, version 7, native
byte-order) but is instead in  Berkeley DB (Hash, version 8, native
byte-order).  Perhaps this would be solved with an update to rpm or
db3 rather than a rebuild of rpmdb in V7 format.
Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2004-02-26 22:17:24 EST
The fix is in the rpmdb-redhat package which is mis-built
with an rpm version that uses db-4.1.25, not db-4.0.14.
Comment 3 Richard Newbigin 2004-03-17 04:40:34 EST
Any chance of getting this fixed?
Comment 4 Richard Newbigin 2004-06-05 06:51:46 EDT
Guess what, this is still broken in U4...
Comment 5 Bastien Nocera 2004-08-03 10:08:43 EDT
*** Bug 117944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 John Flanagan 2005-05-06 11:16:16 EDT
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-398.html

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.