[Yum] bizarre yum badness -- packages removed instead of updated...
Matthew Miller
mattdm at mattdm.org
Thu Oct 12 12:00:32 UTC 2006
Well, crap. The following happened again on some systems (now running yum
2.4.3) with the newest kernel and openafs update.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:47:31AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Background:
>
> We're running yum 2.4.2 on our CentOS-based BU Linux system. Yesterday, we
> put out an update for our openafs packages to match the new kernel -- the
> *only* change to the openafs package being that I added in the kernel module
> for 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL and removed that for 2.6.9-34.0.1.EL. However, because
> of the kernel-module-standard-situation, we just do this in a braindead way
> and there's *no* dependencies for the kernel module in the RPM -- it just
> happens to work if you have the latest kernel and the latest openafs
> package, which you should. The important point is that from rpm and yum's
> point of view, the only difference in these packages is that the release
> went from 1.4.1-1bu45s.4s to 1.4.1-1bu45s.5s.
>
> So:
>
> On about 7/8ths of our systems, this update -- which included just the
> updated kernel and openafs packages -- went without a hitch. However, on the
> other eighth, we got behavior like this:
>
> [...begin update report...]
>
> Thu Aug 24 15:11:44 EDT 2006
> Unmounting /afs and stopping AFS services: [ OK ]
> Unloading AFS module: [ OK ]
>
> =============================================================================
> Package Arch Version Repository Size
> =============================================================================
> Installing:
> kernel i686 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL bulinux-updates 11 M
> kernel-devel i686 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL bulinux-updates 3.7 M
> Updating:
> kernel-hugemem-devel i686 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL bulinux-updates 3.7 M
> kernel-smp-devel i686 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL bulinux-updates 3.7 M
> openafs i386 1.4.1-1bu45s.5s bulinux-updates 2.4 M
> openafs-client i386 1.4.1-1bu45s.5s bulinux-updates 1.5 M
> Removing:
> kernel i686 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL installed 26 M
> kernel-devel i686 2.6.9-34.0.2.EL installed 11 M
>
> Transaction Summary
> =============================================================================
> Install 2 Package(s)
> Update 4 Package(s)
> Remove 2 Package(s)
> Total download size: 26 M
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The yum update generated the following errors. If there was
> a serious problem, you may find some diagnostic information here.
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/yum", line 29, in ?
> yummain.main(sys.argv[1:])
> File "/usr/share/yum-cli/yummain.py", line 175, in main
> base.doTransaction()
> File "/usr/share/yum-cli/cli.py", line 712, in doTransaction
> self.runTransaction(cb=cb)
> File "__init__.py", line 352, in runTransaction
> File "/usr/share/yum-cli/callback.py", line 105, in callback
> fd = os.open(rpmloc, os.O_RDONLY)
> OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
> '/afs/bu.edu/software/linux-dist/bulinux/yum/4.5s/updates/i386/RPMS/openafs-client-1.4.1-1bu45s.5s.i386.rpm'
>
> [...end update report...]
>
> Hhhuh? Why'd it stop AFS? The traceback is logical, since it's *getting* the
> updates out of AFS and it's suddenly vanished, so yum is justifiably
> startled. But what's rpm gone and stopped AFS for?
>
> The openafs-client package has this scriptlet:
>
> preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
> if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then
> /sbin/service afs stop
> /sbin/chkconfig --del afs
> fi
>
> but that should fire only on the last removal, not on an upgrade. And yum's
> output clearly says it's doing an upgrade. But wait!
>
> $ rpm -q openafs openafs-client
> openafs-1.4.1-1bu45s.5s
> package openafs-client is not installed
>
> And the yum log says:
>
> Aug 24 15:07:39 Updated: openafs.x86_64 1.4.1-1bu45s.5s
> Aug 24 15:07:47 Installed: kernel-smp.x86_64 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL
> Aug 24 15:07:48 Erased: openafs-client
>
> and then that's it, because it blew up after that.
>
>
> Now, these machines aren't totally screwed, since we have the repo
> configured to fall back to FTP in the event AFS isn't available. But I'd
> really, really like to figure out what went wrong. Any ideas totally
> appreciated!
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
> _______________________________________________
> Yum mailing list
> Yum at lists.dulug.duke.edu
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
>
--
Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
More information about the Yum
mailing list