Description of problem: An FC3 workstation with all updates as of 1/21 applied was upgraded to FC 4. The upgrade seemed to complete succesfully, but /root/upgrade.log repeated errors: error: %post(audit-libs-0.8.2-1.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 255 error: %post(libtermcap-2.0.8-41.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 255 error: %post(cracklib-2.8.2-1.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 255 error: %post(ncurses-5.4-17.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 255 ... error: %post(openssl097a-0.9.7a-3.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 255 [root@laptop ~]# grep 'scriptlet failed' upgrade.log | wc -l 48 Additional investigation revealed that all installation scripts that invoke /sbin/ldconfig have failed with this error. Furthermore, in all of these cases, the old version of the package was not removed, i.e. after the upgrade both db4-devel 4.2 and 4.3 were installed.
Was SELinux enabled?
No. FC3 was not using selinux.
Today I upgraded another machine that was running FC3+all updates to FC4, and the same thing happened -- all pre/post-install scripts that invoked ldconfig barfed one after another, resulting in the old packages not getting removed. Again the other machine was not using selinux: upgrade.log: ... The following packages were available in this version but NOT upgraded: ... selinux-doc-1.19.5-1.noarch.rpm selinux-policy-strict-1.23.16-6.noarch.rpm selinux-policy-strict-sources-1.23.16-6.noarch.rpm selinux-policy-targeted-1.23.16-6.noarch.rpm selinux-policy-targeted-sources-1.23.16-6.noarch.rpm
Upgraded the final server today, with same results. This time, while anaconda was upgrading packages, I began flipping through the VTs. And, one of the VTs was indeed logging "avc: denied" messages, from I could see on libc.so.6 and libc-2.3.6.so None of these servers ever used SElinux. They were initially installed pre-selinux (FC1, RH9, etc...) and were upgraded over time. So: * they never had anything selinux-related installed or activated. selinux was never used. I don't know much about selinux anyway. * during upgrade, selinux was enabled and, apparently, did not like something, since selinux was never initialized on this machine.
This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd. Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and either update the target product or close it ? Thanks.
This bug still exists in FC6. When I upgraded from FC4 to FC6: [root@commodore ~]# grep scriptlet upgrade.log error: %post(postgresql-jdbc-8.1.407-1jpp.4.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(metacity-2.16.0-5.fc6.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(gnome-vfs2-2.16.0-4.fc6.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(libgnome-2.16.0-4.fc6.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(gnome-mount-0.5-2.fc6.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(gnome-vfs2-2.16.0-4.fc6.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(libgnome-2.16.0-4.fc6.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 ... error: %post(gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.4-1.fc6.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %post(gnome-volume-manager-2.15.0-2.fc6.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %preun(sound-juicer-2.10.1-1.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %preun(yelp-2.10.0-1.4.3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 error: %postun(firefox-1.0.8-1.1.fc4.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 All of these packages appear to have the same thing in common. Their pre/post scripts all invoked ldconfig. Furthermore, after an upgrade, for all of these packages, the rpm database ended up having both the fc4 and the fc6 version of each package listed as install (both the old and the new version of metacity, sound-juicer, etc... was installed at the conclusion of the update). After the upgrade was complete, I spent a lot of time cleaning up this mess and removing all old packages, by hand. After a reboot into FC6, all of the old packages' pre/post scripts obediently ran, without complaining.
Updating the bug status. My comment on Jan 19th supplied the requested information, but it looks like I missed the checkmark.
User pnasrat's account has been closed
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks. If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6, please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting the change. Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we are following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again. And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
This bug is open for a Fedora version that is no longer maintained and will not be fixed by Fedora. Therefore we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen thus bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.