On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, James Antill wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 23:57 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:34:55PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: >> > Can you be a little bit more specific ? Is there a thread describing the >> > issue ? Is there going to be a real fix for it ? > > The BZ I can easily find is RH 465898: > > [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465898 > TypeError: 'NoneType' object is unsubscriptable error in > sqlitesack.py:94:_read_db_obj (pkgId can't be found)] > > ...although I'm sure we discussed something with You or Axel at one > point about multiple pkgId's in one repo. It wasn't me. How can multiple pkgId's be in one repo ? >From the bugzilla entries, I found this excerpt: Ok, everytime I've seen this bug now it's someone using an atrpms repo. It's possible they are doing something weird with multiple packages with the same pkgId, combined with their desire to ship only .xml metadata might produce these kinds of errors. I can add that I would be happy to use the latest and greatest createrepo if those newer versions would work with older distributions (namely, older python versions) and if they can produce metadata that works with older yum/apt releases as well. (Also on RHEL2.1 and RH7.3 systems) In the past that was not always the case and we are not all using the latest Fedora for creating and hosting repo metadata. >> I also don't understand the patch mentioned above. What at ATrpms >> upsets the new yum that way? > > The yum patch is to stop the backtraces, and give a warning to the user > that the repo. is currently broken. Well, I wonder why you think that the warning is better than the backtrace if the user does not understand what the warning means or who they should talk to and yum would still fail to work as they expect. -- -- dag wieers, dag at centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]