Had a friend that accidentally upgraded to this version of
rpm (rpm-2.91-17.i386.rpm) on a 5.x system and had lots of
if one does rpm -i --force package.rpm
on a package that already exist,s it reinstalls the
package, as it ought to, but makes another entry in the rpm
database. This is a royal pain to fix, since you can't
remove it normally ( you need to use --allmatches) and then
resinstall the packages.
Not sure if it's relevant or fixed already, just thought I'd
This won't happen if you use -U --force instead of -i --force.
Fine, but this behavior differs from rpm-2.5.3-5.1, and the behavior,
though not completely irrational isn't rational either. Also, I
suspect -U will remove packages of lower versions, which may not be
Ah, you need to do
when switching from rpm-2.5.x to rpm-2.9x. In rpm-2.9x filenames
are stored relatively, while in rpm-2.5.x filenames are absolute.
At least I think that's what the problem is. Please reopen this bug
if I'm wrong.
the --rebuilddb was run several times, in order to try to fix the
problem. Let me reiterate that rpm -i --force package.rpm does "the
right thing" in not producing duplicate entries, while 2.91-17
produced duplicate database entires. The duplicate entries were
impossible to remove without ripping out the rpms and putting them
back in again. I can't imagine why this is desireable behavior.
The reason we were doing this in the first place was to install rpms
that were of the same version but a "different build"
Anyway, we "fixed" the problem by downgrading rpm, I just thought
you'd like to know we found this bug, and it probably needs to be
fixed eventually (though not for my benefit). If you still think it's
not a bug then go ahead and close it.
> Let me reiterate that rpm -i --force package.rpm does the "right
> Let me reiterate that rpm -i --force package.rpm under rpm-2.5.3-5.1
> does the "right thing"
I cannot reproduce this problem with rpm-2.93-2. I think
the original problem was caused by either
neglecting to run rpm --rebuilddb when upgrading to rpm-2.9x
bugs in rpm-2.91
Thanks for the report.