On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:44:56PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 16:26 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:51:04PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > What's better to do in the case of having a 'ghost' package in the > > > database - it's not really 'installed' in the sense of the files being > > > there on the disk, but it's in the database - is 'rpm -e --justdb > > > --noscripts' . > > > > If there are still files which belong to foobar-1.0 and not foobar-1.1 > > (/usr/share/doc/foobar-1.0/ is the most obvious example but this is > > not the only possibility) then they will be left on your system and > > now not claimed by any package. Cleaning that up "by hand" is a long > > Indeed. That's why I said this is better *in the case of a 'ghost' > package*, where the files have actually gone but the package entry > remains in the DB. Yeah, but situations when a resulting mess is _so kind_ for you that only rpmdb is affected and a system is clean otherwise are so rare that hardly worth to mention. Michal -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
