FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-11-2007, 08:27 PM
Steven Vishoot
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

--- MHR <mhullrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is probably a dumb question, but I'll ask
> anyway (I do that - you all
> know... :-).
>
> Due to a bug I found in OOo 2.0, I moved to using
> OOo 2.3, back when I was
> still running CentOS 5.0.
>
> Now that I have upgraded to 5.1, yum wants to update
> my OOo from 2.3 BACK to
> 2.0.
>
> Is it possible to get yum to recognize that 2.3 is
> newer than 2.0, or should
> I just exclude OOo from the updates?
>
> Thanks.
>
> mhr
> > _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
I'm thinking its operator error. :-D
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-11-2007, 09:13 PM
MHR
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Dec 11, 2007 1:27 PM, Steven Vishoot <sir_funzone@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- MHR <mhullrich@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
> > Now that I have upgraded to 5.1, yum wants to update
> > my OOo from 2.3 BACK to 2.0.
> >
> > Is it possible to get yum to recognize that 2.3 is newer than 2.0, or should

> > I just exclude OOo from the updates?
> >
> I'm thinking its operator error. :-D

Well, let's assume that you are right (and remember how one spells assume) and see:

# rpm -qa | grep -i openoffice

openoffice.org-core03u-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core07-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-onlineupdate-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-writer-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core04-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core10-2.3.0-9221

openoffice.org-mandriva-menus-2.3-9215
openoffice.org-draw-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core03-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core09-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-suse-menus-2.3-9215
openoffice.org-headless-2.3.0-9221

openoffice.org-pyuno-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core05u-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-redhat-menus-2.3-9215
openoffice.org-core-2.0.4-5.4.24
openoffice.org-calc-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-graphicfilter-2.3.0-9221

openoffice.org-core04u-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-freedesktop-menus-2.3-9215
openoffice.org-gnome-integration-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-math-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core01-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core06-2.3.0-9221

openoffice.org-emailmerge-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core05-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-impress-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-core08-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-kde-integration-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-base-2.3.0-9221

openoffice.org-core02-2.3.0-9221
openoffice.org-xsltfilter-2.3.0-9221

# yum update
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Setting up Update Process
Setting up repositories
kbs-CentOS-Extras * * * * 100% |=========================| *951 B * *00:00 * *

base * * * * * * * * * * *100% |=========================| 1.1 kB * *00:00 * *
updates * * * * * * * * * 100% |=========================| *951 B * *00:00 * *

http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/pub/linux/distributions/centos/5.1/addons/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
Trying other mirror.
addons * * * * * * * * * *100% |=========================| *951 B * *00:00 * *

extras * * * * * * * * * *100% |=========================| 1.1 kB * *00:00 * *
Reading repository metadata in from local files
Resolving Dependencies
--> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.

---> Package openoffice.org-calc.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-emailmerge.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-base.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24
set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-graphicfilter.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-math.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-xsltfilter.x86_64
1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-impress.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-draw.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-pyuno.x86_64
1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
---> Package openoffice.org-writer.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check

Dependencies Resolved

================================================== ===========================

Package * * * * * * * * Arch * * * Version * * * * *Repository * * * *Size
================================================== ===========================
Updating:
openoffice.org-base * * x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24
* base * * * * * * *865 k
openoffice.org-calc * * x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *8.1 M
openoffice.org-draw * * x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *1.1 M
openoffice.org-emailmerge *x86_64 * * 1:
2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * * 63 k
openoffice.org-graphicfilter *x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *209 k
openoffice.org-impress *x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *1.6 M
openoffice.org-math
* * x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *1.4 M
openoffice.org-pyuno * *x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *190 k
openoffice.org-writer * x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * *3.1 M

openoffice.org-xsltfilter *x86_64 * * 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 * base * * * * * * * 97 k

Transaction Summary
================================================== ===========================
Install * * *0 Package(s) * * * *

Update * * *10 Package(s) * * * *
Remove * * * 0 Package(s) * * * *

Total download size: 17 M
Is this ok [y/N]:

Please note: the version number listed in the rpm -qa is 2.3.0, but the version number listed in the yum

update confirmation is 2.0.4.

I haven't even touched my yum repos.d directories since I added rpmforge back in April.

So, if this is operator error, please enlighten me as to where so I can operate better.


If by some staggering coincidence it is not operator error, please refrain from making that instant assumption henceforth, mai oui? *Merci beaucoup.

mhr


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-11-2007, 09:17 PM
Matt Hyclak
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:13:10PM -0800, MHR enlightened us:
> > --- MHR <mhullrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Now that I have upgraded to 5.1, yum wants to update
> > > my OOo from 2.3 BACK to 2.0.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to get yum to recognize that 2.3 is newer than 2.0, or
> should
> > > I just exclude OOo from the updates?
> > >
> > I'm thinking its operator error. :-D
>
> Well, let's assume that you are right (and remember how one spells assume)
> and see:
>
> # rpm -qa | grep -i openoffice
> openoffice.org-core03u-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core07-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-onlineupdate-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-writer-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core04-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core10-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-mandriva-menus-2.3-9215
> openoffice.org-draw-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core03-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core09-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-suse-menus-2.3-9215
> openoffice.org-headless-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-pyuno-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core05u-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-redhat-menus-2.3-9215
> openoffice.org-core-2.0.4-5.4.24
> openoffice.org-calc-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-graphicfilter-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core04u-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-freedesktop-menus-2.3-9215
> openoffice.org-gnome-integration-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-math-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core01-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core06-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-emailmerge-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core05-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-impress-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core08-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-kde-integration-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-base-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-core02-2.3.0-9221
> openoffice.org-xsltfilter-2.3.0-9221
>
> # yum update
> Loading "installonlyn" plugin
> Setting up Update Process
> Setting up repositories
> kbs-CentOS-Extras 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
>
> base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
>
> updates 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
>
> http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/pub/linux/distributions/centos/5.1/addons/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml:
> [Errno 14] HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
> Trying other mirror.
> addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
>
> extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
>
> Reading repository metadata in from local files
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
> ---> Package openoffice.org-calc.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-emailmerge.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be
> updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-base.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-graphicfilter.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be
> updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-math.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-xsltfilter.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be
> updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-impress.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-draw.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-pyuno.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> ---> Package openoffice.org-writer.x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 set to be updated
> --> Running transaction check
>
> Dependencies Resolved
>
> ================================================== ===========================
> Package Arch Version Repository Size
> ================================================== ===========================
> Updating:
> openoffice.org-base x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 865 k
> openoffice.org-calc x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 8.1 M
> openoffice.org-draw x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 1.1 M
> openoffice.org-emailmerge x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 63
> k
> openoffice.org-graphicfilter x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base
> 209 k
> openoffice.org-impress x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 1.6 M
> openoffice.org-math x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 1.4 M
> openoffice.org-pyuno x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 190 k
> openoffice.org-writer x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 3.1 M
> openoffice.org-xsltfilter x86_64 1:2.0.4-5.4.24 base 97
> k
>
> Transaction Summary
> ================================================== ===========================
> Install 0 Package(s)
> Update 10 Package(s)
> Remove 0 Package(s)
>
> Total download size: 17 M
> Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> Please note: the version number listed in the rpm -qa is 2.3.0, but the
> version number listed in the yum
> update confirmation is 2.0.4.
>
> I haven't even touched my yum repos.d directories since I added rpmforge
> back in April.
>
> So, if this is operator error, please enlighten me as to where so I can
> operate better.
>
> If by some staggering coincidence it is not operator error, please refrain
> from making that instant assumption henceforth, mai oui? Merci beaucoup.
>
> mhr

rpm -qa --queryformat "%{epoch}:%{name}-%{release}-%{version}.%{arch}" openoffice*

I bet they have an epoch of 0, but the 2.0.4 packages have an epoch of 1,
which means they are newer, even though the version number is smaller.

Matt

--
Matt Hyclak
Department of Mathematics
Department of Social Work
Ohio University
(740) 593-1263
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-12-2007, 02:45 AM
MHR
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Dec 11, 2007 2:17 PM, Matt Hyclak <hyclak@math.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:13:10PM -0800, MHR enlightened us:
>
> > Please note: the version number listed in the rpm -qa is
2.3.0, but the
> > version number listed in the yum update confirmation is 2.0.4.
> >
>
> rpm -qa --queryformat "%{epoch}:%{name}-%{release}-%{version}.%{arch}" openoffice*
>

> I bet they have an epoch of 0, but the 2.0.4 packages have an epoch of 1,
> which means they are newer, even though the version number is smaller.
>
They work like the 2.0 version from before, meaning the same bug I moved to
2.3 to avoid.

So, I guess I'll put in an exclude until something else changes.

Thanks.

mhr


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-12-2007, 04:06 PM
Matt Hyclak
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:45:36PM -0800, MHR enlightened us:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:13:10PM -0800, MHR enlightened us:
> > > Please note: the version number listed in the rpm -qa is 2.3.0, but the
> > > version number listed in the yum update confirmation is 2.0.4.
> > >
> >
> > rpm -qa --queryformat "%{epoch}:%{name}-%{release}-%{version}.%{arch}"
> openoffice*
> >
> > I bet they have an epoch of 0, but the 2.0.4 packages have an epoch of 1,
> > which means they are newer, even though the version number is smaller.
> >
> They work like the 2.0 version from before, meaning the same bug I moved to
> 2.3 to avoid.
>
> So, I guess I'll put in an exclude until something else changes.
>

I wasn't terribly clear. By "newer", I only mean in the eyes of RPM. You
could take foo-0.0.0.0.1beta, give it an epoch of 1 and foo-99.9pro with the
default epoch of 0, and RPM would think the 0.0.0.0.1beta was newer.

I'm not sure why the openoffice 2.x RPMs have an epoch of 1.

Matt

--
Matt Hyclak
Department of Mathematics
Department of Social Work
Ohio University
(740) 593-1263
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-13-2007, 11:45 PM
MHR
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Dec 12, 2007 9:06 AM, Matt Hyclak <hyclak@math.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> I wasn't terribly clear. By "newer", I only mean in the eyes of RPM. You

> could take foo-0.0.0.0.1beta, give it an epoch of 1 and foo-99.9pro with the
> default epoch of 0, and RPM would think the 0.0.0.0.1beta was newer.
>
> I'm not sure why the openoffice 2.x RPMs have an epoch of 1.

>
It seems that there is more to it.

OOo says they do not release 64-bit RPMs of their code, therefore the 64-bit RPMs must have come from CentOS.

If that's true, doesn't it break some kind of unwritten rule to supersede newer software from an OEM source with older software that has been rebuilt?


I have the exclude now (and OOo 2.3.1, which is still 32-bit and "older" than the CentOS 5.1 epoch of OOo 2.0.4), but this just seems wrong.

mhr


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-14-2007, 01:31 AM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

Mhr wrote on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:45:34 -0800:

> If that's true, doesn't it break some kind of unwritten rule to supersede newer software from an OEM source with older software that has been rebuilt?

I'm just "reading by" but if I understood you correctly you installed a
32bit rpm of the 2.3 version (which you missed to tell from the beginning)
and now yum wants to "update" to a 2.0.4 64bit rpm version.
I think you missed a vital point - there's no connection
between the 32bit and 64bit packages, it will never attempt to "update" a
32bit package to 64bit. What actually happens is that it updates the
installed older 64bit package to the newer one. It doesn't matter at all
if you have a 32bit version installed or not. It's just a mystery why
those packages are not shown in your rpm -qa run. But it's clear that
yum thinks they are installed.

Kai

--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-14-2007, 02:07 AM
MHR
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Dec 13, 2007 6:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:
> Mhr wrote on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:45:34 -0800:
>
> > If that's true, doesn't it break some kind of unwritten rule to supersede newer software from an OEM source with older software that has been rebuilt?

>
> I'm just "reading by" but if I understood you correctly you installed a
> 32bit rpm of the 2.3 version (which you missed to tell from the beginning)
> and now yum wants to "update" to a
2.0.4 64bit rpm version.
> I think you missed a vital point - there's no connection
> between the 32bit and 64bit packages, it will never attempt to "update" a
> 32bit package to 64bit. What actually happens is that it updates the

> installed older 64bit package to the newer one. It doesn't matter at all
> if you have a 32bit version installed or not. It's just a mystery why
> those packages are not shown in your rpm -qa run. But it's clear that

> yum thinks they are installed.
>
Interesting points, but not the one I was aiming at.

My point was that the 2.3.1 version from OOo is newer than the 2.0.4 version from CentOS (although there is an epoch difference which makes the CentOS version look newer), and it is modified from the original
2.0.4 OOo distribution in that the one that comes with CentOS is a 64-bit package.

IOW, the CentOS distribution is modified from the original that came from OOo, but it is still an older revision than the newest one from OOo.


Shouldn't it be the case that a newer revision is NOT updated with an older one, epochs notwithstanding (is the epoch an OOo thing or a CentOS thing?) when the old revision's newer release is still a rebuild of an older revision?


(Is this getting too convoluted?* I wouldn't think so, but....)

What do you CentOS folks think?

mhr


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-14-2007, 02:44 AM
Garrick Staples
 
Default Yum update wants to overwrite newer app package

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:07:12PM -0800, MHR alleged:
> On Dec 13, 2007 6:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:
> > Mhr wrote on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:45:34 -0800:
> >
> > > If that's true, doesn't it break some kind of unwritten rule to
> supersede newer software from an OEM source with older software that has
> been rebuilt?
> >
> > I'm just "reading by" but if I understood you correctly you installed a
> > 32bit rpm of the 2.3 version (which you missed to tell from the beginning)
> > and now yum wants to "update" to a 2.0.4 64bit rpm version.
> > I think you missed a vital point - there's no connection
> > between the 32bit and 64bit packages, it will never attempt to "update" a
> > 32bit package to 64bit. What actually happens is that it updates the
> > installed older 64bit package to the newer one. It doesn't matter at all
> > if you have a 32bit version installed or not. It's just a mystery why
> > those packages are not shown in your rpm -qa run. But it's clear that
> > yum thinks they are installed.
> >
> Interesting points, but not the one I was aiming at.
>
> My point was that the 2.3.1 version from OOo is newer than the 2.0.4 version
> from CentOS (although there is an epoch difference which makes the CentOS
> version look newer), and it is modified from the original 2.0.4 OOo
> distribution in that the one that comes with CentOS is a 64-bit package.
>
> IOW, the CentOS distribution is modified from the original that came from
> OOo, but it is still an older revision than the newest one from OOo.
>
> Shouldn't it be the case that a newer revision is NOT updated with an older
> one, epochs notwithstanding (is the epoch an OOo thing or a CentOS thing?)
> when the old revision's newer release is still a rebuild of an older
> revision?
>
> (Is this getting too convoluted? I wouldn't think so, but....)
>
> What do you CentOS folks think?

Epoch is an rpm thing. It is used to force upgrades. It is generally
discouraged because, as you are seeing, it causes a lot of confusion.

You may notice that many packages in the distro have an epoch. Each one was
added for a specific need, and is now stuck forever:
$ rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME}-%{EPOCH}:%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}
' | grep -v '(none)'

The CentOS package (or rather, the Upstream Linux Vendor's package) has an
epoch of 1. At some point in the past, there was a very good reason why
someone added it.

At this point, the solution is to just exclude it from the CentOS repos in your
yum config.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org