Description of problem: Installing glusterfs-resource-agents rpm available in 3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs build throws dependency errors Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): glusterfs 3.4.0.1rhs built on Apr 9 2013 12:37:53 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download the rpm 2. execute - yum localinstall -y --nogpgcheck glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64.rpm Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: # yum localinstall -y --nogpgcheck glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64.rpm Loaded plugins: product-id, rhnplugin, security, subscription-manager This system is not registered to Red Hat Subscription Management. You can use subscription-manager to register. This system is receiving updates from RHN Classic or RHN Satellite. Setting up Local Package Process Examining glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64.rpm: glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64 Marking glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64.rpm to be installed Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package glusterfs-resource-agents.x86_64 0:3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs will be installed --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d for package: glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d for package: glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64 (/glusterfs-resource-agents-3.4.0.1rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64) Requires: /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
glusterfs-resource-agents should not be built in RHS. This is a community addition that makes it possible to integrate glusterfs in pacemaker (Cluster HA stack). http://www.hastexo.com/misc/static/presentations/lceu2012/glusterfs.html contains more details on the advantages.
duplicate of bug 951410.
(In reply to comment #3) > duplicate of bug 951410. I'm not sure, bug 951410 was filed against RHS-2.0, this Bug is against RHS-2.1.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > duplicate of bug 951410. > > I'm not sure, bug 951410 was filed against RHS-2.0, this Bug is against > RHS-2.1. Well, "Version(s):" in bugzilla is to identify in which version the bug was detected, in this case it should be "2.0" since we update from "2.0" to "2.1". As long as the issue is addressed I am fine with either of them being marked as duplicate. I intentionally did not _mark_ this as duplicate and just commented so that dev can take appropriate action early and we have 1 bug less to triage. :)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 951410 ***