Yum did it again

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 08:09 -0400, 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...
> 
> [...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.  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.
> 
> 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.  ;-)

Whoops, I hate to reply to myself, but I realized after replying that
this was on fedora-legacy-list and not fedora-devel-list.  (See earlier
comment re: my ignorance, QED.)  Bend the foregoing comments into shape
appropriately.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050623/3037e1c6/attachment.sig>