Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 437813
Error running transaction - no reason
Last modified: 2010-10-22 19:18:04 EDT
Description of problem: A physical media install on a HVM xen guest led to bogus error message. The message indicated rpm transaction error but not pointing out the reason. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): anaconda-11.1.2.107-1 rpm-4.4.2-48.el5 yum-3.2.8-8.el5 How reproducible: not consistent Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install RHEL5.2 Server snap#1 from CDROM 2. Choose all optional packages (except Virtualization) 3. Proceed with the install up to the 5th CD Actual results: Error message - see screen shot Expected results: Installation proceeds without error Additional info: Folks from RTT indicate that they've seen this issue on ppc, s390x and ia64 but it wasn't reproduce-able. Joel Granados advised that this could be caused by a faulty package which crashes the RPM transaction. The package in question most probably is the last package being added: kde-i18n-Ukrainian in this case. anaconda.log doesn't indicate anything suspicious. I'll try to reproduce and post more results. Xen guest has 4GB of memory (on a machine with 16GB) so that's not a memmory issue.
Created attachment 298272 [details] screen dump of UI
Reproduced 2 of 2 times. Steps to reproduce: 1) Boot of the first CD (Xen HVM guest, 4GB ram, 1 CPU) 2) Proceed to stage2 3) At package selection screen choose "Select all optional packages" for all package groups. Deselect only Virtualization (as we're running on Xen). 4) Proceed with install changing discs as required 5) The error happens after the 5th disc is inserted and OK is clicked. Always ends up at kde-i18n-Ukrainian package. All ISOs pass checkisomd5 - tested on Dom0
Just ran a loooooong test with http://porkchop2.devel.redhat.com/rel-eng/RHEL5.2-Server-20080306.0/5/x86_64/iso/. The bug did not appear. This tree is from 06. and the last change to anaconda for rhel5 was on the 6. This change had nothing to do with the installation of packages or the rpm stuff (it was done to fsset.py) IMO there is something going wrong in the distill phase of the tree compose.
I do apologize, the last commit to rhel5 was Mon Mar 17 20:42:15 2008. However there are only two commits that actually change the code between the 6 and the 17. None of them is rpm related. I still think its something non-anaconda related.
FYI, the relative commits that I'm talking about are : commit1 f92756b2dfeb4b0e5184a920a669143ca1a9c471 commit2 f9ada332e3dbbd8d5916093cd3b0d8419698f172 commit3 074d6099dde8f03bdc16bec19a37151eae5e0abc commit4 fec477ef0c613cdd8d77a9c2fec6f066a6368b9e The rest are older that thsee four. and two of the four are version changes (no code changes). so the relevant commits would be 2 and 4.
(In reply to comment #14) > Joel, > seeing the bug with RHEL5.2-Server-20080306.0 tree with steps to reproduce from > comment #3 That was ia64 ISOs. Joel and I will test with i386 and x86_64 as it might be arch dependent (he hasn't seen it on x86_64).
CDROM install, snap #1: fails on ia64, passes on i386 and x86_64
Could someone provide a list of the packages that anaconda is attempting to install when it hits the traceback?
Created attachment 298740 [details] updates.img AFAIK, no traceback. just a message. comment 1. I observed that yuminstall.py does not consider all the rpm.RPMPROB* elements. I created a updates image in the hope that it will be more informative.
Created attachment 298741 [details] this is what was added.
Testing with the provided updates.img doesn't lead to any additional info. Still the same blank error dialog. I can provide anaconda.log if needed.
*** Bug 252353 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 299175 [details] list of rpm packages from 0317 tree (split media)
Created attachment 299176 [details] list of rpm packages from 0320 tree (split media)
Created attachment 299178 [details] diff between packages lists I'm examining this diff to see if there were packages that changed from one disc to another. Any other files to diff, e.g. comps.xml ?
how about distill, did it change? Still debugging this issue. have no extra information. with regard to comment 29. I really see no relation between the changes in anaconda and the transaction issue. The changes where made to: isys.c -> network related stuff fsset.py -> partitioning and disk iscsi -> internet scsi stuff net.c -> networkrelated stuff. these are all things that come before the installation of the packages and have no direct relationship with the transaction stuff.
(In reply to comment #37) > dgregor, > also I see in > http://porkchop.redhat.com/rel-eng/RHEL5.2-Client-20080320.0/logs/checktree > FAILED: compose.16 multilib its actually FAILED: compose.8 iso_sizes > and two file conflicts. Are these relevant to this case? dunno.
*** Bug 437433 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #39) > And there's nothing on tty3 when you get the error? I think the last line on the tty3 is the "adding package" message
Created attachment 299733 [details] the variable screenshot The behavior I found is quite strange, I have to look a bit more and run some more tests but just wanted to add an interesting screen shot. I let the transaction run (yum code) and checked the error variable after the step, the error var had tow errors. Funny thing is that anaconda has no idea of the error ever happening. the exception was raised in yum code, it was caught in anaconda code, but anaconda has no knowledge of what is in the error variable (that the reason why it doesn't list anything in the error alert window). Moreover, the two files that apear in the error message, are the same ones that appear in the tree checks in the trees. http://porkchop2.devel.redhat.com/rel-eng/RHEL5.2-Client-20080306.0/logs/checktree http://porkchop2.devel.redhat.com/rel-eng/RHEL5.2-Client-20080317.0/logs/checktree http://porkchop2.devel.redhat.com/rel-eng/RHEL5.2-Client-20080320.0/logs/checktree look for "File conflict"
(In reply to comment #47) > I could believe that the xulrunner-devel split across discs in the 0317.0 tree > is the culprit. However, if that's the case, then why did the installation fail > at or around disc 5? It wouldn't have hit the conflict until disc 7. I'm actually hitting this on disc 7.
ok, just commited this for rhel5. The error dialog shows the reason for the error now. relative commit : 8e7302fc9215e566e0562da8e03be87b76e03e55
should pop up in version 11.1.2.110 of anaconda
sorry, thats 11.1.2.111.
*** Bug 436768 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 300259 [details] error dialog with the actual reason - file conflict
*** Bug 440637 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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 the 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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2008-0397.html