On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 15:46 -0500, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 14:20, William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill@triad.rr.com wrote:
Since I know nothing of the scripts (python?)
Usually they're Bourne shell script.
You can see the scripts used by cups-libs with this command: rpm -q --scripts cups-libs
Took a peek at the scripts for lzo too. Only ldconfig is shown. Ditto for cups-libs, libpurple. Enscript runs a script that executes a binary, /sbin/install-info, so I can't tell what it does, but it _seems_ innocuous enough, based on the name of the binary.
I thought I'd better seek some help.
Always a good call! :-)
One of the steps "ldconfig" does is creating symbolic links for libraries, using the name that is hard-coded inside the library.
I'm going to test that lzo install since it won't directly affect anything else.
AH! Ergo, when it tries and there is a real file, is sensibly doesn't replace it. And it's nice enough to let the user know.
That's it.
Hmm. Wouldn't an rpm -q --whatprovides tell all occurrences? Of course, if the miscreant package was since removed it couldn't. Maybe rpm expects only one source per resource?
Probably the miscreant package was not an RPM, since otherwise you would have a conflict and it wouldn't install "cleanly".
I avoid non-rpm installs because I believe in the "purity" principle. The only exception I recall was a user-local install of FF 3 beta. That was done a a non-privileged user, so no risk there. Later, I installed the real thing and it's all good.
But something happened somewhere, as you'll probably be able to tell when (if?) you see my request about prelink woes (I'll post a 2nd plea later).
My strong feeling is it is related.
RPM can be used to show that something unexpected was changed with your original RPM if you use this command: rpm --verify lzo
Bingo!? This was one of the ones that showed up in my thread about prelinking woes. I had run a global --verify a got a handful of messages similar to those below. Unfortunately, IIRC, trying to remove some of the stuff, so I could re-install, had too many undesirable side-effects (like removing some apps that I _really_ need to avoid messing with ATM).
$ rpm --verify lzo SM5..... /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1 prelink: /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1.0.0: at least one of file's dependencies has changed since prelinking S.?..... /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1.0.0
That "stoopid" prelink message reminded me, I have a post about that no one responded too. I'll post a second request on that later.
# ls -l `locate liblzo.so` -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 406394 Nov 4 02:39 /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 406394 Nov 4 02:39 /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1.0.0
I would advise also doing "md5sum /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1*" to make really sure they're the same.
As noted, the rpm --verify caught the md5 sum issue. But IIRC, my 4.x used to get that frequently when --verify was run and there were prelinked files involved.
Side note: /var/log/prelink/prelink.log of 12/15 shows liblzo.so.1 was prelinked OK. It didn't "see" liblzo.so.1.0.0 though.
As both files have the same date, I might be wrong in my suspicion that that was the date the file replaced the symbolic link.
It looks like lzo installed both files. It was installed 11/5, the only 11/4 install was net-snmp-libs. An rpm --filesbypkg on it shows no lzo reference of any kind.
Rpm --last has an lzo that shows
lzo-1.08-5.el5.rf Wed 05 Nov 2008 06:51:28 PM EST
and filesbypkg shows
$ rpm -q --filesbypkg lzo lzo /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1 lzo /usr/lib/liblzo.so.1.0.0
As noted above, the script only runs ldconfig in post(un)install. With an 11/4 date and 11/5 install my bet is the 11/4 date was that contained in the rpm. IIRC, most installs try to maintain creation date, useful in detecting if a file has been changed, as if common with configuration files. If rpmforge made the thing on 11/4 this would be my expectation.
It looks like the remove/ldconfig would be just as good here.
Yes!
With the above additional information, I'm now of the opinion that an --erase and --install would be safer. That'll clean up at least that one of my "prelink woes" issues.
I'm going to check my logs and see if I can see what scrogged the setup. If I see anything likely, I'll post so others can see it.
None of the "Usual Suspects" appeared. Combined with my "prelink woes" issues, I now think something undetected out-of-the normal happened. I'm going to sneak a peek at "messages", sneaking, sneaking, peeking, peeking, ... RATS! Oldest "messages" doesn't go back that far.
I think I'm at the point of a backup, remove, re-install of some stuff, based on this, your help and my "prelink woes" issues.
You know, given time, occasional issues and community help I'm learning a little about some of this new-fangled stuff.
Good, thanks! Filipe
<snip sig stuff>
Thanks for all the feedback Filipe!