On Wednesday 15 February 2006 11:08, William L. Maltby wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:44 +0100, Peter Kjellström wrote: > > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 22:14, William L. Maltby wrote: > > > Sorry to reply to myself, but ... > > > > > > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 13:45 -0500, William L. Maltby wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 10:55 -0500, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > > > ><snip> > > > > > > > > > > Try running 'yum clean all' then 'yum update' and see what you > > > > > get. rpmforge should include all of dag's packages anyway so there > > > > > shouldn't be a problem. All I can tell you is it "WorksForMe". > > > > > > > > All the other's updated fine. I'm going to ribit and do a forced fsck > > > > to make sure I'm not getting victimized by a creeping calamitous > > > > failure on my HD. Then I'll try some manual junk. > > > > > > Ummm... I'd try some manual junk if I had any idea where to start. I > > > did the reboot, fsck, and even tried a yum update while in single user > > > mode. ImageMagick updated ok, but the two files here failed again. > > > > > > nmap-frontend.i386 2:4.01-1.2.el4.rf > > > nmap.i386 2:4.01-1.2.el4.rf > > > > > > Since I'm under the aegis of WFM now, if someone could give a starting > > > point for me to follow and resolve, I'd appreciate it and stop > > > pestering you all. I can't figure why only this one should be a problem > > > only for my installation. *sigh*. > > > > FWIW, I see the exact same problem here with all of my centos-4 machines > > that have nmap from rpmforge.net. I consider it a broken rpm package (but > > havn't looked into it yet. I dropped dag a line about it. > > Peter, thanks for taking the time. I see several other posts report the > problem now, so apparently the "WorksForMe" poster has a better setup. > Anyway, Johnny Hughes replied (in thread Re: [CentOS] DAG Repository) > that there is a known and on-going problem of this type with that mirror > that is so persistent that Dag made a form for dealing with it. It is > here > > http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/FAQ.php#C1 > > > You can allways update and, for the time, ignore nmap like this: > > yum --exclude=nmap update > > Yes, I did that. In resolution of another problem a couple weeks back, I > re-read completely the oft cited YUM documents. Combined with > suggestions like yours above that I had seen on the lists before, that > one stuck in my mind and allowed me to proceed regardless of the one bad > file. > > > /Peter > > > > ><snip diag listing I sent> > > What I'm thinking now is that there is probably some way to override the > checksum/gpg checking from the command line. If so, and if I can find > out what the real check sum is supposed to be, I could check the file > and install it by turning off the checking (at the command line > hopefully, instead of temp modification of the config file). The bigger ones yum config, the more servers you depend upon for sanity in order to get 100% success rate on yum update type commands :-/ I feel sorry for the rpmforge guys because they've had a lot of problems with their mirrors (and as such with users running yum). They do a great job and fantasic packages. The rpmforge-release package is a very good idea, it takes care of adding the relevant parts to your yum conf and as such reduces risks associated with the human factor. As I wrote in the other sub thread, if yum and/or rpm barfs on the file it's probably not a good candidate for installing. Don't fall down to fedora levels of package checking ;-). If a package fails it's rpm sums, then it's broken and the user should wait for a fixed one. /Peter > So a little > reading again of the YUM docs (I hope I don't have to do it so often > that I no longer need to read it! =:-O ) and effort to get the right > "numbers" and I shiould be able to get it done withb waiting for the > habitually broken mirror folks to habitually fix it habitually > temporarily again. > > Again, thanks for the reply. > > Bill -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Kjellström | National Supercomputer Centre | Sweden | http://www.nsc.liu.se -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060215/77d4e85a/attachment-0005.sig>