Yum did it again

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 23 June 2005 08:09, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 05:31 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>[...snip...]
>
>> >> >what version of yum?
>> >>
>> >> yum-2.0.7-1.1
>> >>
>> >> >what version of libxml2 and libxml2-python are installed?
>> >>
>> >> libxml2-python-2.6.16-2
>> >> libxml2-devel-2.6.10-1.1.fc2.nr
>> >> libxml2-2.6.16-2
>> >
>> >does it strike you as alarming that those 3 don't all match?
>>
>> No, the miss-match is in the devel file and shouldn't bother
>> yum/python unless I start compileing them from scratch.
>
>I think what Seth may have been alluding to, although I certainly
> don't mean to put words in his mouth, is that if these don't match,
> it's an indicator that you may be using some incorrect
> methodologies while doing all this rpm mixing and matching.  IIRC,
> most people agree that "--force" is bad, unless you *absolutely*
> know what you're doing.  I don't see how you could have ended up
> with such a mismatch, without using either "--force," or a really
> poorly spec'd RPM from a non-authoritative source.  It would be
> pointless for me to continue (thus betraying more ignorance on my
> part) given that Seth is already on the thread.  :-)  Moving on...

Yup --force --nodeps

>[...snip...]
>
>> I just checked, I still have the FC2 iso's so I could burn another
>> set and use those to recover to the FC2 release level of
>> yum/python/libxml2.  Humm, they can be mounted but I don't recall
>> the syntax.  It involves using the loop device I think...
>
>You're still thinking about this the wrong way.  Rather than try and
>haphazardly rescue a borked system which is preventing you from
> doing meaningful troubleshooting, why not take this chance to
> install (*NOT* upgrade to) FC4 instead?  Given the pace of Fedora,
> you're more likely to get help with any residual yum problems -- if
> indeed you have any after installation, which I haven't -- if
> you're using the stuff that's not a year old.  :-)
>
>> >> There are pieces of python-1.5, 2.2, and 2.3 installed here. 
>> >> Its been that way since I upgraded RH7.3 to FC2.
>> >
>> >I'd like to show you to:
>> >http://torrent.fedoraproject.org
>> >
>> >go download an install disk and fix your system.
>
>Disco!
>
>> So what rpms do I now need to either update the python stuffs to
>> be compatible with this new libxml2 stuff, or to downgrade the
>> libxml2 stuffs to regain python compatibility?
>>
>> I do have FC4 final downloaded and on cd's & ready to go, but
>> after the debacle in getting FC2 to actually do work here, my
>> first install of FC4 is going to be an upgrade on a sacrificial
>> FC3T4 box, not on this, my 99% working box.  Or are the rpms on
>> the FC4 disks compatible with my version of rpm?  Historically
>> not...
>
>Argh!  It seems you don't understand that upgrading any "test"
> version to a final version is *NEVER* a recommended option.  If
> it's a sacrificial box, as you say, then do an installation *from
> scratch*, not an upgrade.

It also has an install of bdi-emc on it (two drives) I'd druther not 
have to redo. I use one partition from the others hard drive for 
the /var.  And thats something that the brain dead disk tool (or 
anaconda?) won't allow.  It makes perfect sense, but that disk tool 
won't do it.

> Once you have that done, and you see the 
> results and like them -- which I bet you will, since I'm using FC4
> myself -- take Seth's advice and *install* FC4 onto your "real"
> system.  Not an upgrade, not a mix-and-match of RPMs (especially
> since "--force" is not your friend), but an actual installation. 
> If, by some chance, you need help or advice on that process,
> consult fedora-list since the developers on this list are focused
> on discussing what's broken, working, or coming up next for the
> latest and greatest Fedora stuff.

Did they get rid of whatever simple minded disk tool they were using?, 
or was it worked on enough that it did what you told it to?  Whatever 
that was they used in FC3 is never, ever getting a chance to infect 
my system again.  Gimme fdisk, which does exactly what you tell it 
to, nothing more, nothing less.  I started 2 major list wars over 
that busted disk tool at the time and its not going to bite me again.

>Hopefully I haven't annoyed any of said developers by pitching in on
>this thread; I just thought it would save them some time and energy
> they could devote to cool Fedora bits.  Not to sound sycophantic,
> but in case any of them are still reading, FC4 rocks hard.  And
> Seth, I used to be an up2date die-hard, but I'm now a yum convert. 
> The yum-utils are superb; I can't wait for pup.  ;-)

I agree, Yum is great, when it works.  But its favorite pastime is 
upgrading something that destroys it.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.