Bug 244236 - Incorrect return code
Summary: Incorrect return code
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rpm (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: 5.0
Hardware: All Linux
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact:
Depends On: 454887
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-06-14 17:00 UTC by Jan Hutař
Modified: 2009-01-20 20:49 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-01-20 20:49:21 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2009:0079 normal SHIPPED_LIVE rpm bug fix update 2009-01-20 16:04:16 UTC

Description Jan Hutař 2007-06-14 17:00:09 UTC
Description of problem:
"rpm -qp not_a_file" returns incorrect return code

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

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rm -f not_a_file
2. rpm -qp not_a_file
3. echo $?

Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
I tried on RHEL-4 and it is OK (returns 1). On Fedora Development rpm returns 0 

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2007-06-15 07:31:04 UTC

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2007-06-15 11:09:33 UTC
Yup.. rpmgiNext() stops the iteration on errors and doesn't differentiate the
error case vs normal end of iteration, making accurate error reporting
impossible  AFAICT unless api or at least rpmgiNext() return semantics are changed.

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2007-06-16 02:42:41 UTC
The semantics will be changed this weekend ;-)

Thanks for 
    changeset 6020:	7db24f0e47a5

Comment 4 Jan Hutař 2007-06-21 15:01:28 UTC
just noticed this (on x86_64 system where are no *.s390 packages):

$ rpm -q libbonobo.s390
$ echo $?

But libbonobo i386 & x86_64 packages are installed:

$ rpm -q libbonobo

Probably this is relevant to this bug?

Comment 5 Jeff Johnson 2007-06-21 17:29:10 UTC
Actually, your example in #4 is a different flaw, fixed in other ways quite some
time ago in rpm-4.4.9, and recently in as well.

Comment 6 Denise Dumas 2008-07-16 14:17:39 UTC
The RPM rebase in 5.3 / Fedora 9 includes a fix for this issue 

Comment 7 RHEL Product and Program Management 2008-07-16 14:31:31 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release.  Product Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed
products.  This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update

Comment 12 errata-xmlrpc 2009-01-20 20:49:21 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.


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