Bug 581003 - Multiple "-@packagegroup" entries not honored in kickstart file when used in conjunction with @Everything
Multiple "-@packagegroup" entries not honored in kickstart file when used in ...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 577334
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: anaconda (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Anaconda Maintenance Team
Release Test Team
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2010-04-09 14:29 EDT by Gary Case
Modified: 2011-06-29 10:32 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-04-14 10:04:00 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Gary Case 2010-04-09 14:29:28 EDT
Description of problem:
An @Everything install of RHEL5.5 isn't possible when using more negation groups than -@Conflicts.

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

How reproducible:
Every time

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Build a kickstart file that contains, in the %packages section,

# Choose packages and package groups for installation

2. Attempt install
3. Watch installation fail due to conflicts
4. Edit the kickstart file to remove the -@Clustering line

# Choose packages and package groups for installation

5. Watch the installation complete as expected

Actual results:
Failed install

Expected results:
Completed install, without the Clustering package group

Additional info:
I'll be attaching passing and failing kickstart files.
Comment 1 Gary Case 2010-04-09 14:31:22 EDT
This may be undefined behavior, or behavior we aren't worried about, due to the deprecation of "@Everything" installs in RHEL5.5. That is discussed in this bug:

Comment 4 Chris Lumens 2010-04-09 14:47:53 EDT
Please attach the log files and error messages to this bug report.
Comment 6 Gary Case 2010-04-09 15:37:55 EDT
I see a pop-up during a GUI install when the install fails:

Error running transaction

There was an error running your transaction, for the following reason(s): file conflicts
Comment 7 Chris Lumens 2010-04-12 12:04:58 EDT
Do you get the same results on an i386 install that you do on this x86_64 install?
Comment 8 Gary Case 2010-04-12 13:22:41 EDT
Yes, I get the same results.
Comment 10 Chris Lumens 2010-04-12 14:30:30 EDT
There's nothing inherent about using multiple group removal lines that should cause this problem.  We simply iterate over the list of groups and remove from  the transaction all the group's packages.  Group removals are handled after everything else in package selection.  I wonder if these packages are somehow getting dragged in as dependencies for other packages anyway and that's overriding your choices.
Comment 11 Gary Case 2010-04-12 14:47:17 EDT
Did we forget to add the 32-bit packages to the conflicts list? In both 32-bit and 64-bit installer logs, the failures were due to conflicts with the 32-bit packages only.
Comment 12 Chris Lumens 2010-04-14 10:04:00 EDT
Looks like there's something strange going on when -@Conflicts is not the last line in the %packages section.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 577334 ***

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