On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 13:40 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > William L. Maltby wrote: > > [root@wlmlfs08 ~]# rpm -qa rpm\* > > rpm-python-4.3.3-13_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-4.3.3-11_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-build-4.3.3-11_nonptl.i386 > > rpmdb-CentOS-4.2-0.20051011.i386 > > rpmdb-CentOS-4.3-0.20060314.i386 > > rpm-libs-4.3.3-11_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-libs-4.3.3-13_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-build-4.3.3-13_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-4.3.3-13_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-devel-4.3.3-11_nonptl.i386 > > rpmforge-release-0.3.4-1.el4.rf.i386 > > rpm-python-4.3.3-11_nonptl.i386 > > rpm-devel-4.3.3-13_nonptl.i386 > > [root@wlmlfs08 ~]# > > you obviously have a fubar'd rpmdb and/or a broken update/upgrade that > you never fixed! > > did you just never realise there were duplicates there ? Never looked before. Remember, this is new to me. Anyway, when I saw that, I thought of two possibilities and decided to investigate. One is the possibility you mention. The other is the possibility that answers a question I posted elsewhere: is "rpm -qa <pkg>\*" reliable. I posted as I did only so that the WFM answer Jim posted had some immediate support. But thanks for pointing it out. Being new, I could have overlooked it entirely. I'm hoping that its the "... rpm\*" that is the cause rather than the assumption that it's obviously fubar'd. > -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
