[CentOS] Protectbase Plugin not working?

Johnny Hughes mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Sun May 7 21:07:06 UTC 2006

On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 22:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Daniel de Kok wrote on Sun, 07 May 2006 15:01:36 +0200:
> > Under what circumstances is its behavior 
> > inconsistent?
> Look at the recent thread 
> "differences between yum update and yum check-update"
> which seems to be caused by protectbase. It showed different results for 
> check-update and update which would create completely undesired action 
> during the update. It doesn't seem to protect in all cases. F.i. if the 
> package from protect=0 contains an "obsoletes" statement (at least that is 
> what I assume) it can overwrite protect=1.
> Kai
Actually ... I think if you go on with the update it will fail. (At
least it did for me)

Regardless, the error is caused because of the naming not being the same
between the two repos.  If the names were the same (or if the obsoletes
were consistent), then the plugin would function properly.  The file
clamav-db is newer than something else ... and it is not being blocked
from being installed because it doesn't exist in the other repo.  That
is why there is confusion ... however the plugin ultimately prevents the
install.  You can't expect yum/RPM to solve this issue unless the two
repos in question either name the files the same things ... OR ... make
them provide the same things.  That is how yum will know they are the
same.  To yum, clamav-db is not part of the already installed clamav
stuff since it doesn't exist in the other repo.

At issue here is that file naming inconsistencies can cause problems. I
don't believe yum will actually install that package though, as I think
the plugin blocks it.

I am currently testing the Priorities plugin written by Daniel de Kok
(earlier in this thread) ... it seems to allow assigning a number of
between 1 (highest priority) and 99 (lowest priority) to each repo.

So far, it seems to work well ... although it too has an issue with
clamav, because of the naming convention issues.
-------------- 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://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060507/b569cd23/attachment.sig>

More information about the CentOS mailing list