Bug 1194915
| Summary: | Duplicate entries in updateinfo.xml reports unnecessary errors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Pat Riehecky <riehecky> | ||||
| Component: | yum | Assignee: | Michal Domonkos <mdomonko> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Eva Mrakova <emrakova> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | 7.0 | CC: | ajb, csieh, dakini, emrakova, gpneumarke, james.antill, johan.burati, mdomonko, misterbonnie, phil, pportant, toracat, vmukhame | ||||
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Patch | ||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | yum-3.4.3-151.el7 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2017-08-01 09:07:52 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
| 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: | 1380360, 1393866 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Pat Riehecky
2015-02-20 22:29:28 UTC
Here is some additional information on the issue. We're seeing this on systems that have only RHEL7 and RHEL7-optional repos enabled. [root@64RHEL7 ~]# yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rhel-7-server-rpms updateinfo Loaded plugins: product-id, subscription-manager updateinfo summary done [root@64RHEL7 ~]# yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rhel-7-server-rpms --enablerepo=rhel-7-server-optional-rpms updateinfo Loaded plugins: product-id, subscription-manager Update notice RHSA-2014:0679 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. You should report this problem to the owner of the rhel-7-server-rpms repository. Update notice RHSA-2014:1327 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHEA-2015:0372 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHBA-2015:0335 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHEA-2015:0371 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHSA-2015:0416 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHBA-2015:0303 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHBA-2015:0556 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHSA-2015:0290 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHBA-2015:0596 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHBA-2015:0578 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHSA-2015:0716 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHSA-2015:1115 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHBA-2015:1533 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHSA-2015:1586 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. Update notice RHSA-2015:1705 (from rhel-7-server-rpms) is broken, or a bad duplicate, skipping. updateinfo summary done I confirm Stefanie's comment. I've got the identical output on my RHEL-7 system. The issue described in comment 3 is unlikely the same as reported in this bugzilla, but rather the same as the issue reported in bug#1269265. (In reply to Pat Riehecky from comment #0) > Description of problem: > When yum-security finds an entry ID in an updateinfo.xml which it has > already found it reports an error. This makes sense when the xml stanzas > differ, but when the stanzas are identical this results in an error message. > > For example, my private repo includes some packages from EPEL in order to > ensure the repo is appropriately closed. I have copied in the relevant > stanzas out of the EPEL updateinfo and added my own for my packages. When I > enable EPEL on this system for other packages I receive a string of error > messages about duplicate update IDs. > > Since the content of the updateinfo stanza is identical, I would not expect > this to report an error. Yum does not report an error on the identical rpm > package. For identical stanzas (assuming you mean the <update/> element and its content), yum really shouldn't throw the bad duplicate error (and it really didn't for me when I reproduced the same scenario). Is it possible that you modified some part of the <update/> element's content in the copy you used in your repo? Yum requires the duplicates to be exactly the same (except for <pkglist/> which is allowed to differ), including any whitespace chars, otherwise the error is thrown. There have been similar issues with RH*A advisories distributed via RHN/CDN, where two logically same update notices would be reported as being bad duplicates because of them being inconsistent in some unicode/whitespace chars (also reported in comments #3 and #4 and bug 1269659). Upstream yum contains a patch [1] that makes it easier to debug these issues by printing in --verbose mode the exact fields that don't match, so let's use this BZ to backport it into RHEL-7. That may also help you to find the cause of the issue you had (if it's still current). [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/yum/commit/533a3e3b23ba5263e7c17fd9a4e165c4e25d158e Hi Michal, see bug 1203963, there still seem to be some issues reported. Created attachment 1282800 [details]
rpm -q yum; yum clean all; yum makecache # On perf34, RHEL 7.4 Beta
*** Bug 1467764 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:2295 |