On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:21:03 +0530, KC (Kashyap) wrote: > On 10/11/2011 05:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:19:22 +0530, KC (Kashyap) wrote: > > > >> Heya, > >> > >> I'm trying to get rawhide running by yum updating a minimal footprint F16 virtual > >> machine. Only @core package, so no gnome-* nothing else. > > > > And no /bin/sh either? It is provided by "bash". > > That was the obvious check. I /did/ check that (forgot to mention) > ################################################## > [root@dhcp201-139 ~]# ls -al /bin/sh > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Oct 10 15:20 /bin/sh -> bash > ################################################## > [root@dhcp201-139 ~]# file /bin/bash > /bin/bash: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses > shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, stripped > ################################################## That check is useless. Only files tracked by the local RPM database and repository metadata count. > That's what surprised me too. I did try these. 'bash' is right there. > ################################################## > [root@dhcp201-139 ~]# rpm -qf `which bash` > bash-4.2.10-4.fc16.x86_64 Also a "wrong" test. "rpm -q --whatprovides /bin/sh" would have been the proper check to find the package(s) that provides /bin/sh _prior_ to your upgrade attempt. > ################################################## > [root@dhcp201-139 ~]# repoquery -q --whatprovides --alldeps bash --enablerepo=rawhide > --disablerepo=* > bash-0:4.2.10-5.fc17.x86_64 What does that tell you? Not much. Instead: # repoquery --whatprovides /bin/sh --enablerepo=rawhide --disablerepo=* bash-0:4.2.10-5.fc17.x86_64 as you want to find out whether anything still provides /bin/sh when enabling the target repo (one could examine it further in case it isn't "bash" but an unexpected other package). Now as /bin/sh is still available, does the full Yum update output say anything about "bash"? The error you've seen is not an unresolved dependency, but something later. With an unresolved dependency, it would have bailed out even before downloading any packages. You would have had to add --skip-broken for it to continue. > [...] > Install 6 Packages > Upgrade 197 Packages > Remove 1 Package > > Total size: 108 M > Is this ok [y/N]: y > Downloading Packages: > Running Transaction Check > ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve: > /bin/sh is needed by groff-base-1.21-5.fc17.x86_64 You somehow lose /bin/sh during the transaction check, which is something unexpected. Is that reproducible also after cleaning Yum's download cache? What is the full list of packages to be updated? Is the new "bash" on it, too? Have you looked up the downloaded package below /var/cache/yum to check it for errors? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
