On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:15:39 -0500, Jim Cornette wrote: > Paul Dickson wrote: > > >> I misinterpreted the 3/70 and the [...] above. So did it continued through > >> to 70/70 after rebuilding the db before the transaction? > > > > Yes it did finish. I merely included a clipping to show that glibc was > > no longer installed, at least according to yum/rpm. > > > > -Paul > > > > Do you have the entry currently inserted into the rpm database for > glibc? If it is now in the rpm database, does glibc check out as being > intact? > At least it was not removed in actuality. "rpm -V glibc glic-common" doesn't report any problems. Yesterday, yum installed bin-utils because of dependencies. I now wish I'd done a rpm -V before I pressed Y, but more than likely, it just wasn't in the rpm DB any more. -Paul -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list