Bug 193304 - Surprising behaviour of "rpm -F" with multiple architectures installed
Summary: Surprising behaviour of "rpm -F" with multiple architectures installed
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 88623
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: 5
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Paul Nasrat
QA Contact: Mike McLean
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-05-26 23:11 UTC by Kai Engert (:kaie) (inactive account)
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-05-29 15:09:37 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Kai Engert (:kaie) (inactive account) 2006-05-26 23:11:06 UTC
Description of problem:
Surprising behaviour of "rpm -F" with multiple architectures installed.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.4.2-15.2

How reproducible:
Let me describe it abstractly.
You need 4 packages:
- pack-1.i386.rpm
- pack-1.x86_64.rpm
- pack-2.i386.rpm
- pack-2.x86_64.rpm
Then follow the steps

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpm -ivh pack-1.x86_64.rpm
2. rpm -ivh pack-1.i386.rpm
3. rpm -Fvh pack-2.x86_64.rpm
all steps so far installed the package, now
4. rpm -Fvh pack-2.i386.rpm
this does nothing. 
  
Actual results:
A test using
  rpm -qi pack.i386
shows that we have still pack-1.i386 installed.

Expected results:
Command in step 4 should have installed pack-2.i386

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2006-05-29 12:18:41 UTC
Use -U not -i.

Comment 2 Kai Engert (:kaie) (inactive account) 2006-05-29 13:29:52 UTC
I disagree this is not a bug.
Did you misunderstand my explanation? Sorry if it has not been clear. I did not
use -i in the failing step, I used -F.
Let me rephrase:

Option -F should "update package that is already installed to the latest version".

But option -F did not work, it did not "freshen". I did not upgrade the package.
I did nothing.

I think step 4, using -F, should have installed the newer pack-2.i386.rpm
But it did not.
Nothing happened.
That is the bug.



Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2006-05-29 15:09:37 UTC
Ah, --freshen is your concern. Sorry for being dense.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 88623 ***


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