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 at 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! -- Bill