Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 79331 - rpm 4.1 does not seem to support --prefix option
rpm 4.1 does not seem to support --prefix option
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 75057
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: rpm (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jeff Johnson
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2002-12-10 04:13 EST by Rajiv Ganth
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:38 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2002-12-10 04:13:14 EST
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 Rajiv Ganth 2002-12-10 04:13:08 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003

Description of problem:
I have been using Red Hat Linux 7.3 for quiet sometime, and recently upgraded to
8.0.  With this distro, Red Hat is distributing new version of rpm 4.1-x, which
is not supporting some of the rpm commands which I am used to.  First of all,
the documentation CD with the Red Hat 8.0, does not talk about rpm 4.1 but, 4.0.
 There is no place, in the documentation CD, where I could find some info about
latest rpm version with the OS distribution.  

The rpm command is simply ignoring the --prefix option.  
If I say, 

# rpm -Uvh --prefix /usr/local/mine <pkg>.rpm

the package is not installed under /usr/local/mine

It would be great, if you could provide the solution or pointers to the solution.

Thanks in advance.

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

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  run command rpm -Uvh --prefix <dir name> <pkg>.rpm


Actual Results:  package is not installed under <dir name>

Expected Results:  package should have been installed under the specified
directory <dir name>

Additional info:
Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2002-12-10 06:59:14 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 75057 ***

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