Severe RPM bug, causing file removel, FC-6 showstopper?

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

A couple of days ago someone posted that when removing i386 versions of 
packages of which he had both an x86_64 and i386 version, caused doc 
files and po files to be removed, evne though the x86_64 version was 
still installed, so I expected to find something about this in BZ, but 
found nothing.

I just saw rpm remove files owned by multiple package versions when only 
one version gets removed :( This is really bad IMHO.

Here is what happened:
1) I did yum -y update
2) It took long and I needed my computer for something else, so I did
    CTRL-C while it was updating
3) Thus it had 2 versions of fedora-release-notes installed, as it never
    got to the cleanup part
4) I fixed this with "rpm -e fedora-release-notes-5.92-5" (the old ver)
5) When I started firefox it said it couldn't find:
    /usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html

I filed this in BZ as:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209306

Regards,

Hans

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 04 October 2006 10:52, Hans de Goede wrote:
>  4) I fixed this with "rpm -e fedora-release-notes-5.92-5"
> (the old ver) 
I do believe this should have been a --justdb flag.

>  5) When I started firefox it said it couldn't find:
>      /usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html 
-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Ralf Ertzinger]

Hi.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:07:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

>  I do believe this should have been a --justdb flag. 
Still, if there is still a package owning these files installed
after the removal the files ought to stay.

[Rex Dieter]

Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
 
>  On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:07:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  
> > I do believe this should have been a --justdb flag.
>  
>  Still, if there is still a package owning these files installed
>  after the removal the files ought to stay. 
+1, there's an rpm bug at work here.

Since it (apparently?) only affects items marked %doc, I think it is
premature to consider this a showstopper.

-- Rex

[Hans de Goede]

Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>   
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:07:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> >> I do believe this should have been a --justdb flag.
> > Still, if there is still a package owning these files installed
> > after the removal the files ought to stay.
>   
Exactly, this used to work fine with previous versions (FC-5) of rpm, 
ectually you do not want to use --justdb, because if files were removed 
/ renamed fomr one version-release to the other you would ned up with 
stale unowned files.

I'm using rawhide for a long time and as such often have yum breakage 
causing this kinda dual version installs and have been using rpm -e 
old-version without --justdb hapily to fix this for a long time.

Also as reported earlier the same thing happens when removing one arch 
of a multi-arch package.

Regards,

Hans

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:07:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

>  On Wednesday 04 October 2006 10:52, Hans de Goede wrote:
>  > 4) I fixed this with "rpm -e fedora-release-notes-5.92-5" (the old ver)
>  
>  I do believe this should have been a --justdb flag. 
Why?

User wants to remove any files on disk, which are not included in the new
package. Everything else which still belongs to a package in the db must
not be removed by rpm. --noscripts --notriggers would be much more
appropriate for a manual removal like this than --justdb.
 
>  > 5) When I started firefox it said it couldn't find:
>  >     /usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html
>