Re: What to do when rpm verification fails

[Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

T. Horsnell wrote:
> > T. Horsnell wrote:
> > > > T. Horsnell wrote:
> > > > > 1. I seem to have some duplicate package names (this is on an x86_64
> > > > >    system which has only been 'up2date'ed once immediately after
> > > > >    installation) e.g:
> > > > >
> > > > > [root@ls1 ~]$ rpm -q tcp_wrappers
> > > > > tcp_wrappers-7.6-37.2
> > > > > tcp_wrappers-7.6-37.2
> > > > You may have both x86_64 and i386 versions installed.
> > > >
> > > > Try:
> > > >
> > > > $ rpm -q --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n' tcp_wrappers
> > > Aha. I do indeed have both i386 and x86_64 versions installed for the ones
> > > which rpm -V is complaining about. But why does this confuse rpm?
> > I wouldn't have thought it would.
> >
> > > Can I tell it to only do one sort?
> > Try:
> > $ rpm -V tcp_wrappers.i386
> > $ rpm -V tcp_wrappers.x86_64
>
> I just did this.
> $ rpm -V tcp_wrappers.x86_64	reports no errors
> $ rpm -V tcp_wrappers.i386	complains.
>
> Getting warm here.
>
> $rpm -ql tcp_wrappers-7.6-37.2.i386
> [root@ls1 ~]$ rpm -ql tcp_wrappers-7.6-37.2.i386
> /usr/include/tcpd.h
> /usr/lib/libwrap.a
> /usr/lib/libwrap.so
> /usr/lib/libwrap.so.0
> /usr/lib/libwrap.so.0.7.6
> /usr/sbin/safe_finger
> /usr/sbin/tcpd
> /usr/sbin/try-from
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/BLURB
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/Banners.Makefile
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/CHANGES
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/DISCLAIMER
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/README
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/README.IRIX
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/README.NIS
> /usr/share/man/man3/hosts_access.3.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts.allow.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts.deny.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts_access.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts_options.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man8/tcpd.8.gz
>
> [root@ls1 ~]$ rpm -ql tcp_wrappers-7.6-37.2.x86_64
> /usr/include/tcpd.h
> /usr/lib64/libwrap.a
> /usr/lib64/libwrap.so
> /usr/lib64/libwrap.so.0
> /usr/lib64/libwrap.so.0.7.6
> /usr/sbin/safe_finger
> /usr/sbin/tcpd
> /usr/sbin/try-from
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/BLURB
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/Banners.Makefile
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/CHANGES
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/DISCLAIMER
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/README
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/README.IRIX
> /usr/share/doc/tcp_wrappers-7.6/README.NIS
> /usr/share/man/man3/hosts_access.3.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts.allow.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts.deny.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts_access.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/hosts_options.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man8/tcpd.8.gz
>
> So if rpm is computing the md5sum of the installed binaries and
> comparing it to that stored in the rpm database, does it check
> whether the installed binary is i386 or x86_64? 

My understanding of what happens when different-arch packages are 
installed is:

* rpm won't let it happen if both packages own the same file and
  the files are not exactly the same

* the only exceptions to the previous rule are for binaries, where
  the "superior" version (x86_64 in this case) gets its package
  installed and the other-arch version doesn't get installed.

This may be completely wrong though; I don't have an x86_64 box myself 
(yet).

However, it would explain what you're seeing.

Paul.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list