[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
>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.
Well, I 'rpm -V' everything but the .i386 packages thus:
#!/bin/csh -f
#
foreach p (`rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n' | grep -v i386 | sort`)
echo "*********** $p"
rpm -V $p
end
The result was that I only got S.5... complaints for things which I knew
I'd modified (.conf files and the like) so I am now a very happy bunny.
Many thanks for your help here, otherwise I might even have been considering
a re-install!
Cheers,
Terry.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
