[Fedora-packaging] Re: RPM weirdness [moved from fedora-list]

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 03:50:06PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
> 
> >> I'm a flailing at cluefulness here.  Maybe someone can set me straight.
> >>
> >> I run "yum" nightly (as as service), but I see a lot of "*.rpmnew" files
> >> being left around.
> >>
> >> What's most bizarre is that the original RPM files haven't been changed,
> >> and often the two files have the same size, contents (and hence MD5
> >> signature), permissions, ownership, etc.  Even the same file modification
> >> date in most cases.
> >>
> >> So why do they get left behind?
> >>
> >> # cd /etc/security
> >> # ls -ltr chroot*
> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82 Aug  1 05:18 chroot.conf.rpmnew
> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82 Aug  1 05:18 chroot.conf
> >> # diff -c chroot.conf.rpmnew chroot.conf
> >> # mv chroot.conf.rpmnew chroot.conf
> >> #
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo:
> 
> # ls -l /etc/security/chroot.conf*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82 Aug  1 05:18 /etc/security/chroot.conf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82 Aug  1 05:18 /etc/security/chroot.conf.rpmnew
> # perl -e 'print join(", ", stat("/etc/security/chroot.conf")), "\n"'
> 64768, 721510, 33188, 1, 0, 0, 0, 82, 1154431139, 1154431139, 1156023232, 4096, 8
> # perl -e 'print join(", ", stat("/etc/security/chroot.conf.rpmnew")), "\n"'
> 64768, 719917, 33188, 1, 0, 0, 0, 82, 1154431128, 1154431128, 1156023323, 4096, 8
> # perl -e 'print scalar localtime((stat("/etc/security/chroot.conf.rpmnew"))[9]), "\n"'
> Tue Aug  1 05:18:48 2006
> # perl -e 'print scalar localtime((stat("/etc/security/chroot.conf"))[9]), "\n"'
> Tue Aug  1 05:18:59 2006
> #
> 
> And there you have it.
> 
> Why are the packages being generated with a few seconds jitter?
> 
> This seems to be generating a lot of .rpmnew files gratuitously.

Looks a bit like multilib. E.g. config files existing in two packages,
an i386 and an x86_64 one.

If it were a single package and rpm upgrades it it registers that the
config files have not changed, so the new one can be put in place.

But if you do that for two packages in a row that contain exactly the
same config files, then the first update will have changed the config
files properly, but the second update will think the user changed the
config files manually and will go the rpmnew route.

So the question is: Is that a x86_64 system? If yes, then we need to
think about config files in multilib. If not, then forget about the
above consiracy theory. ;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061211/35ba05a5/attachment.sig>