Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
mark
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:07:20AM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
Is this from a 3rd party repository? Or where? CentOS doesn't come with memcached... does it?
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
mark
Check out this one http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/suggest/2010-April/001380.html
So you propably will need CentOS 5.5 for this memcached update.
Chris
financial.com AG
Munich head office/Hauptsitz München: Maria-Probst-Str. 19 | 80939 München | Germany Frankfurt branch office/Niederlassung Frankfurt: Messeturm | Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 49 | 60327 Frankfurt | Germany Management board/Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Boehnert | Dr. Alexis Eisenhofer | Dr. Yann Samson | Matthias Wiederwach Supervisory board/Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Dr. Ernst zur Linden (chairman/Vorsitzender) Register court/Handelsregister: Munich – HRB 128 972 | Sales tax ID number/St.Nr.: DE205 370 553
Chris wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
Check out this one http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/suggest/2010-April/001380.html
So you propably will need CentOS 5.5 for this memcached update.
Ah, but since the box is running 5.4, it seems as though something's broken, and yum check-update should not tell me that it's ready to update memcached.x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 from epel. Seems broken to me.
mark
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:20 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Chris wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
Check out this one http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/suggest/2010-April/001380.html
So you propably will need CentOS 5.5 for this memcached update.
Ah, but since the box is running 5.4, it seems as though something's broken, and yum check-update should not tell me that it's ready to update memcached.x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 from epel. Seems broken to me.
mark
This is a long story iirc dag had quite an argument with the yum developers about that. Some people say yum is broken others say the repo is broken. Its a matter of opinons. You propably want --skip-broken.
Chris
financial.com AG
Munich head office/Hauptsitz München: Maria-Probst-Str. 19 | 80939 München | Germany Frankfurt branch office/Niederlassung Frankfurt: Messeturm | Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 49 | 60327 Frankfurt | Germany Management board/Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Boehnert | Dr. Alexis Eisenhofer | Dr. Yann Samson | Matthias Wiederwach Supervisory board/Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Dr. Ernst zur Linden (chairman/Vorsitzender) Register court/Handelsregister: Munich – HRB 128 972 | Sales tax ID number/St.Nr.: DE205 370 553
Chris wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:20 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Chris wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
<snip>
This is a long story iirc dag had quite an argument with the yum developers about that. Some people say yum is broken others say the repo is broken. Its a matter of opinons. You propably want --skip-broken.
I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4, and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually 5.5.
mark
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 20:38 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Chris wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:20 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Chris wrote:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS 5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
<snip> > This is a long story iirc dag had quite an argument with the yum > developers about that. Some people say yum is broken others say the repo > is broken. Its a matter of opinons. You propably want --skip-broken.
I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4, and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually 5.5.
mark
Well thats one side of the story, but an implicit "--skip-broken" would have the same effect, you wouldn't see the update at all.
Chris
financial.com AG
Munich head office/Hauptsitz München: Maria-Probst-Str. 19 | 80939 München | Germany Frankfurt branch office/Niederlassung Frankfurt: Messeturm | Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 49 | 60327 Frankfurt | Germany Management board/Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Boehnert | Dr. Alexis Eisenhofer | Dr. Yann Samson | Matthias Wiederwach Supervisory board/Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Dr. Ernst zur Linden (chairman/Vorsitzender) Register court/Handelsregister: Munich – HRB 128 972 | Sales tax ID number/St.Nr.: DE205 370 553
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4, and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually 5.5.
You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for things like that when you use CentOS.
Ralph
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4, and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually 5.5.
You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for things like that when you use CentOS.
I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, glibc?
mark
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, glibc?
5.5 *is* released. Just not by CentOS yet.
Ralph
Ralph wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, glibc?
5.5 *is* released. Just not by CentOS yet.
And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
mark
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:24:25AM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Ralph wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, glibc?
5.5 *is* released. Just not by CentOS yet.
And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
You are using a repo that tracks RHEL when you're using CentOS. The only problem, here, is that CentOS is behind the curve.
Either use a repo that tracks CentOS or wait until CentOS releases 5.5.
My recommendation: don't have the other repositories enabled by default so your "yum update" only updates core components, and then you can check against the 3rd party repos at with with the --enablerepo option.
On May 4, 2010, at 10:24 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
mark,
from your post here
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2010-May/093953.html
i infer that the package in question comes from EPEL. is that correct? (if so, i suggest that you make use of EPEL support resources: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Where_can_I_find_help_or_report_issu...).
i don't know how the EPEL maintainers are handling the interval between RHEL 5.5 and CentOS 5.5; however, if they have moved their buildhosts to RHEL 5.5, and they are rebuilding packages for RHEL 5.5, that would explain the behavior you are seeing. the discussion here seems potentially relevant: https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2010-April/msg00008.html and also this BZ entry: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563985
did you google before posting to the list?
my latest information from Dag is that RPMforge is not planning to upgrade buildhosts to 5.5 until CentOS 5.5 is out. RPMforge currently provides a memcached-1.4.5 package that will run on CentOS 5.4, and will also run on RHEL 5.5 with the compat-libevent-11a package (also from RPMforge).
-steve
-- If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v http://five.sentenc.es
Steve wrote:
On May 4, 2010, at 10:24 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
from your post here
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2010-May/093953.html
i infer that the package in question comes from EPEL. is that correct?
I think so.
(if so, i suggest that you make use of EPEL support resources: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Where_can_I_find_help_or_report_issu...).
i don't know how the EPEL maintainers are handling the interval between RHEL 5.5 and CentOS 5.5; however, if they have moved their buildhosts to RHEL 5.5, and they are rebuilding packages for RHEL 5.5, that would explain the behavior you are seeing. the discussion here seems potentially relevant: https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2010-April/msg00008.html and also this BZ entry: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563985
did you google before posting to the list?
Nope. And this isn't something I have control over - this is at work, this is the way it's been set up for years, and they're not going to change it. In fact, adding the EPEL repo is part of the instructions on our wiki on setting up a new system.
my latest information from Dag is that RPMforge is not planning to upgrade buildhosts to 5.5 until CentOS 5.5 is out. RPMforge currently provides a memcached-1.4.5 package that will run on CentOS 5.4, and will also run on RHEL 5.5 with the compat-libevent-11a package (also from RPMforge).
That seems reasonable to me. To rephrase, if I'm upgrading a CentOS 5.4 system, and there's no CentOS 5.5, I don't see why yum should find a 5.5 package.
*shrug* If I were a repo maintainer, I would not allow this. I can't see, say, Red Hat showing a 5.6 package if only 5.5 was out.
mark
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:25 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
if I'm upgrading a CentOS 5.4 system, and there's no CentOS 5.5, I don't see why yum should find a 5.5 package.
You're missing the point.
epel is a repo intended for RHEL, and by a happy coincidence you can use their repo for Centos too.
RHEL 5.5 is out, so epel provides updates for it.
Am 04.05.10 17:25, schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
That seems reasonable to me. To rephrase, if I'm upgrading a CentOS 5.4 system, and there's no CentOS 5.5, I don't see why yum should find a 5.5 package.
Because there are no 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.x packages for yum. There is only 5. Which is at 5.5 when you track upstream. And EPEL does exactly that: Already build packages for 5.5. yum does know *nothing* about that, yum just updates what is in the repos for version 5. There is no 5.4 tree in the EPEL repository either, just a 5 tree. Which already contains packages built against 5.5.
*shrug* If I were a repo maintainer, I would not allow this.
As EPEL tracks upstream, why shouldn't they already build against 5.5? And CentOS can not allow or disallow anything in this regard. It would be nice if EPEL would wait for CentOS to catch up, but they (and atrpms) don't do that.
I can't see, say, Red Hat showing a 5.6 package if only 5.5 was out.
That cannot happen. How? Epel cannot build against 5.6 when 5.6 isn't out.
Ralph
Am 04.05.10 16:24, schrieb m.roth@5-cent.us:
Ralph wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, glibc?
5.5 *is* released. Just not by CentOS yet.
And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
No, memcached is in EPEL, not in CentOS. And EPEL already tracks 5.5.
Ralph
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4, and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually 5.5.
You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for things like that when you use CentOS.
Until now I have only seen the kernel causing problems (with kmdl support), and I have become very careful to always support the latest centos kernels (as well as centosplus kernels).
Are there any other know issues with ATrpms and too early package support for the upcoming centos release?
Am 05.05.10 08:32, schrieb Axel Thimm:
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for things like that when you use CentOS.
Until now I have only seen the kernel causing problems (with kmdl support), and I have become very careful to always support the latest centos kernels (as well as centosplus kernels).
Are there any other know issues with ATrpms and too early package support for the upcoming centos release?
Sorry if that looks like I was badmouthing your repo somehow :)
I was assuming you were already building against 5.5 as I ran into a problem updating the nvidia-kmdl. I didn't do any further checks then, but decided to live with that issue.
If that isn't so, I said something wrong I guess.
Regards,
Ralph
Hi,
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 04:11:15AM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Am 05.05.10 08:32, schrieb Axel Thimm:
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for things like that when you use CentOS.
Until now I have only seen the kernel causing problems (with kmdl support), and I have become very careful to always support the latest centos kernels (as well as centosplus kernels).
Are there any other know issues with ATrpms and too early package support for the upcoming centos release?
Sorry if that looks like I was badmouthing your repo somehow :)
I was assuming you were already building against 5.5 as I ran into a problem updating the nvidia-kmdl. I didn't do any further checks then, but decided to live with that issue.
If that isn't so, I said something wrong I guess.
There are kmdls for both 5.4 and 5.5, the kernels currently supported are:
2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5.centos.plus 2.6.18-194.el5
The very nature of kmdls allow me to offer kmdl for verious kernels in the same repo w/o one obsoleting the other.
But there is a rare code path in yum when both the kernel *and* the nvidia release are bumped at the same time ("same time" means your upgrades enclose both upgrade, so it looks as having been upgraded "at the same time" from you yum's POV) where yum tries to pull the new kernel instead of just upgrading as always.
In that case you can circumvent the logic by telling yum what to do exactly, e.g. something like
yum install nvidia-graphics195.36.15{,-kmdl-`uname -r`}
In a nutshell: ATrpms does try hard to keep CentOS users happy. :)
-
Axel Thimm -
Christoph Maser -
Frank Cox -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Ralph Angenendt -
Stephen Harris -
Steve Huff