yum update in rawhide after a long break [was Re: rawhide report: 20080114 changes]

[Jim Cornette]

Todd Denniston wrote:
> Jim Cornette wrote, On 01/14/2008 06:07 PM:
>> Todd Denniston wrote:
>>
> 
>>> 2) to get an F8 machine[1] on to rawhide do I just need to disable 
>>> the yum entries for fedora & updates, and then enable development, 
>>> then do a yum update?n 
>>
>> You may need to do this upgrade incremental. Also make sure that you 
>> are running yum from a virtual terminal instead of through a terminal 
>> in the GUI. Chances are that X will crash and yum will have left a 
>> mess in the aftermath.
>> I prefer to upgrade the glibc items first and then everything 
>> incrementally except do not update the kernel until the later portion 
>> of the update.
>>
> 
> I have a propensity to `yum update yum* rpm* cpio gpg` before I update 
> much else on the system...
> That bit me this time.
> 

I do not update yum initially because of past failures. I guess it is 
still a good idea to wait until the bulk of packages is upgraded.

> error follows:
> There was a problem importing one of the Python modules
> required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was:
> 
>    /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/_sqlitecache.so: undefined symbol: 
> g_assertion_message_expr
> 
> Please install a package which provides this module, or
> verify that the module is installed correctly.
> 
> It's possible that the above module doesn't match the
> current version of Python, which is:
> 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Oct 30 2007, 13:54:11)
> [GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)]
> 
> 
> 
> apparently the yum-3.2.8-2.fc9 rpm set got something wrong.

If it depends upon a certain version of python it should have pulled it 
in or refused to pull in yum,
> 
> so it looks like I am going to be doing an `rpm -Fvh *` in my Rawhide 
> mirror, updating openssl just pulls in too many dependencies.... and 
> after that failed ... a little googleing ended up at:
> http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=178870
> by pulling the _sqlitecache.so (and just that file) from a 
> yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-1.fc8.i386.rpm, at least lets yum try to 
> update 731 packages. [It looks like it may have worked, but <deity> only 
> knows how much on the raw side of rawhide the machine is now.]

It should pull in the newer packages correctly I would expect.

> 
> the yum-metadata-parser-1.1.2-5.fc9.i386.rpm must then be the package 
> with the problem.???
> 
> while update was running I was seeing lines like
> I/O warning: failed to load external entity 
> "/etc/gconf/schemas/gdm-simple-greeter.schemas"
> next line indicates No such file or directory.
> (and most of them seemed to be gconf related... to bad I did not log the 
> update with errors to a file.)

It exists on rawhide. At least for my setup.
locate gdm-simple-greeter.schemas
/etc/gconf/schemas/gdm-simple-greeter.schemas

> 
> 
> 
> so anyone got any good suggestions to figure out what is likely broken 
> besides running (and running every package on the system)
> package-cleanup --problems
> #indicates glibc requires glibc-common-2.7-2 and 2.7.90-4 is installed
> rpm -qa --last|grep glibc # shows glibc-2.7-2 and glibc-2.7.90-4 installed

package-cleanup --cleandupes might work. I would prefer downolading the 
rpm and running rpm --replacepkgs --replacefiles on the later rpm. Both 
should work.
Try running rpm -qV on both packages and most likely files are missing 
from the earlier version.
Someone indicated on the Fedora list that the --replacefiles option is 
not good for some reason. They seem to have no negative outcomes for me. 
I don't customize many files though for packages.

> any clean way to clean THAT up, or am I back to installing 7.92 and 
> carefully updating from there (no http to new rawhide iso's)? assuming 
> that an rpm -e on any glibc is a badddd thing.
> 
> package-cleanup --dupes
> and
> package-cleanup --orphans
> 
If you are going to start from the beginning you might as well install 
from rawhide or from your local mirror of rawhide.

Just my view,

Jim

-- 
Windows:
It's not pretty.
It's not ugly.
But it's pretty ugly.