On 10/11/2011 08:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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 ~]# rpm -q --whatprovides /bin/sh bash-4.2.10-4.fc16.x86_64 [root@dhcp201-139 ~]# ############### > >> ################################################## >> [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 Right, I notice the same too. > > 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"? If you mean, just yum update on F16 (w/o enabling rawhide) -- no. If you mean, when target repo(rawhide) is enabled, it /does/ attempt to update 'bash' package. ------ . . bash x86_64 4.2.10-5.fc17 rawhide 978 k ------ 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? Yeah, I was able to reproduce it. I /did/ clear the yum's cache(in fact, removed the var/cache/yum/* ). > What is the full list of packages to be updated? I've uploaded it here: http://kashyapc.fedorapeople.org/full-list-of-rawhide-pkgs-to-be-updated.txt > Is the new "bash" on it, too? Yes. This is the version it tries to update to - bash-4.2.10-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm > Have you looked up the downloaded package below /var/cache/yum > to check it for errors? Would the below suffice ? ############################### [root@dhcp201-139 packages]# pwd /var/cache/yum/x86_64/16/rawhide/packages [root@dhcp201-139 packages]# rpm -Vp bash-4.2.10-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm [root@dhcp201-139 packages]# ############################### Thanks for you help so far. -- /kashyap -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
