On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 07:22 -0400, Matt Hyclak wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:05:47AM -0500, Aleksandar Milivojevic enlightened us: > > I've updated CentOS 4.0 to 4.1 on several machines (some desktops, some > > servers). However on my laptop, update is failing with following error > > just after headers are downloaded: > > > > --> Running transaction check > > --> Processing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.3.4-2 for package: glibc > > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > > Error: Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.3.4-2 is needed by package glibc > > > > My CentOS.repo is a standard one, as distributed with CentOS. I don't > > have any additional repos defined on my laptop. I attempted to clear > > yum cache (rm -rf /var/cache/yum/*). Rerun yum update, and got the same > > error again. > > > > Looking at the /var/cache/yum/base/headers, I see that yum downloaded > > headers for gblic-common, glibc-devel, and glibc-headers, but not for > > glibc. Seems as if yum did not considered base glibc package to be due > > for update. Running rpm -q glibc, shows that currently installed > > version of glibc is 2.3.4-2 (and all the other currently installed glibc > > packages are at the same version level). > > > > I don't remember doing anything fancy on that laptop that could have > > triggered this problem. Basically, it was normal install (desktop+devel > > packages mostly), and after that it was regulary updated from cron. > > > > Of course, as a workaround I could download glibc and related packages > > and update it by hand, and than rerun yum update to get all other > > updates from 4.1. But, I though it would be more fun if anybody could > > give me hint or two why yum failed to update this particular system. > > I had the same problem on a Pentium 166 machine. Is the laptop an i586 > architecture? I am wondering if there is some exactarch weirdness going on > with yum. I needed to get the machine up and running, so I did as you said > and installed glibc and glibc-common by hand, then re-ran yum. > > Matt There is a bug with work around solutions ... the glibc released by RH does not build on / for i586. Here is the bug: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=943 There is also a bug filed upstream and we continue to work on this issue. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050620/ef923dff/attachment.bin