On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:06:05PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Axel Thimm schrieb: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 09:00:34PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Axel Thimm (Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:24:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 02:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > >>>>> o rpm -i behaves properly with file conflicts > >>>>> o yum may for some reason turn of file conflict checking > >>>> There is no code in yum that disables file conflict checking. > >>> I wouldn't think so myself, but Thorsten's report seems to indicate > >>> this. > >>> Is there some other explanation why people don't see file conflicts > >>> under yum? > Albeit: I more and more tend to think I did it correctly because we > (lvn, lvn users, jcmasters in his kABI testing,) would have hit the > "file conflicts on updates" problem often and people would have yelled. > And I go not a single report in livna's bugzilla mention file-conflicts > since we use the kmod scheme. Wow, that means that if it indeed does not yell, that people w/o fedorakmod.py are happily overwriting their previous kernel modules? For example with the change of the name of the openafs ko module, the users had two modules simultaneously installed praying for the userland to modprobe the correct name ... Coinstallation of kernel modules of different module evr for the same kernel is a bug as explained before. File conflicts are guardians, and w/o you (partly) overwrite your old module. > > I just checked with rpm -i alone and that worked as expected, > > e.g. file conflicts were detected and the install aborted. > > That's exactly the part that missing in the report -- that works here, > too. See: > > > [thl@notebook ~]$ rpm -qa kmod-foo foo-kmod-common > > foo-kmod-common-1.1-1 > > kmod-foo-1.1-1.2.6.17_1.2157_FC5 > > [thl@notebook ~]$ sudo rpm -ivh /home/thl/tmp/testrepo/kmod-foo-1.1-1.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686.rpm > > Vorbereiten... ########################################### [100%] > > 1:kmod-foo ########################################### [100%] > > WARNING: Module /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko is not an elf object > > [thl@notebook ~]$ sha1sum /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko > > b9bfed7890b1126a8469291a1a0c19f2c61cdf35 /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko > > [thl@notebook ~]$ sudo rpm -ivh /home/thl/tmp/testrepo/kmod-foo-1.1-2.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686.rpm > > Vorbereiten... ########################################### [100%] > > 1:kmod-foo ########################################### [100%] > > WARNING: Module /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko is not an elf object > > [thl@notebook ~]$ sha1sum /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko > > f8afd194e3058c40092396d7186d43c239920075 /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko > > [thl@notebook ~]$ rpm -V kmod-foo-1.1-1.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5 > > ..5....T /lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2174_FC5/extra/foo/foo.ko > > [thl@notebook ~]$ rpm -V kmod-foo-1.1-2.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5 > > [thl@notebook ~]$ > Am I doing something terribly wrong during testing here? Why does it > fail for Axel, but not for me? I would start with simpler examples like the two minimal specfiles I posted. If you still don't get file conflicts something is really off here (I have a vanilla FC5/i386, e.g. rpm-4.4.2-15.2), maybe you're tuning rpm over global macros?. If you do get file conflicts then it's part of the kmod specfile - start adding parts that you suspect may confuse rpm enough to not report the conflict, so you know what part of the specfile did it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpQ5LD5ASZQ8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
