Bug 1457 - redundant package entries with rpm
redundant package entries with rpm
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: rpm (Show other bugs)
1.0
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jeff Johnson
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 1999-03-09 14:33 EST by bperkins
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-03-22 15:57:50 EST
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 bperkins 1999-03-09 14:33:05 EST
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
problems.

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
mention it.
Comment 1 Joseph Malicki 1999-03-09 15:20:59 EST
This won't happen if you use -U --force instead of -i --force.
Comment 2 bperkins 1999-03-09 15:56:59 EST
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
desireable.
Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 1999-03-09 19:54:59 EST
Ah, you need to do
	rpm --rebuilddb
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.
Comment 4 bperkins 1999-03-09 21:00:59 EST
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.
Comment 5 bperkins 1999-03-09 21:03:59 EST
ah shoot.

> Let me reiterate that rpm -i --force package.rpm does the "right
> thing"

should read

> Let me reiterate that rpm -i --force package.rpm under rpm-2.5.3-5.1
> does the "right thing"
Comment 6 Jeff Johnson 1999-03-22 15:57:59 EST
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
or
	bugs in rpm-2.91
Thanks for the report.

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