Обсуждение: barman package
Hi all,
I'm getting these errors when trying to update barman:
# yum update barman
Loaded plugins: etckeeper, langpacks, refresh-packagekit
Repository google-chrome is listed more than once in the configuration
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package barman.noarch 0:1.3.2-1.fc20 will be updated
---> Package barman.noarch 0:1.3.3-1.f20 will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
========================================================================================================================================================================
Package Arch
Version Repository
Size
========================================================================================================================================================================
Updating:
barman noarch
1.3.3-1.f20 pgdg93
144 k
Transaction Summary
========================================================================================================================================================================
Upgrade 1 Package
Total size: 144 k
Is this ok [y/d/N]: y
Downloading packages:
Running transaction check
Running transaction test
Transaction check error:
file /etc/bash_completion.d/barman from install of
barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch conflicts with file from package
barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch
Error Summary
-------------
I can't find the root of the problem, and the only way around it is
removing barman and installing it again.
Has anyone else had this problem in the past?
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi, On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 15:18 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote: > Transaction check error: > file /etc/bash_completion.d/barman from install of > barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch conflicts with file from package > barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch > > Error Summary > ------------- > > I can't find the root of the problem, and the only way around it is > removing barman and installing it again. Oh! Does anyone have an idea how we can fix it? Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Вложения
2014-09-05 10:10 GMT-03:00 Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org>: > > Hi, > > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 15:18 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote: > >> Transaction check error: >> file /etc/bash_completion.d/barman from install of >> barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch conflicts with file from package >> barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch >> >> Error Summary >> ------------- >> >> I can't find the root of the problem, and the only way around it is >> removing barman and installing it again. > > Oh! Does anyone have an idea how we can fix it? The error makes me think that rpm doesn't see the new barman as an update of the old barman. I have been looking at a possible fix for it for some time, but couldn't get to the root of the problem. Will update if I find something. Regards, -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi, On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:17 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote: > The error makes me think that rpm doesn't see the new barman as an > update of the old barman. Oh, I see now: The previous package comes from Fedora repo with *fc20* suffix, and the update comes from our repo with *f20* suffix. You may want to exclude the package in Fedora repo. It worked for me that way. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Вложения
El 05/09/14 10:51, Devrim Gündüz escribió: > > Hi, > > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:17 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote: >> The error makes me think that rpm doesn't see the new barman as >> an update of the old barman. > > Oh, I see now: The previous package comes from Fedora repo with > *fc20* suffix, and the update comes from our repo with *f20* > suffix. You may want to exclude the package in Fedora repo. It > worked for me that way. ??? Let me check that, but I recall installing both from pgdg3. [minutes later] Yes, it's from Fedora. Why was the 'c' excluded in the pgdg package? P.D.: I recall the heated discussion about leaving or taking away the 'c' from package names after Fedora Core became just Fedora. -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi, On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:58 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote: > Why was the 'c' excluded in the pgdg package? > > P.D.: I recall the heated discussion about leaving or taking away the > 'c' from package names after Fedora Core became just Fedora. I was on the "take away" camp :-) Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Вложения
El 05/09/14 11:09, Devrim Gündüz escribió: > > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:58 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote: >> Why was the 'c' excluded in the pgdg package? >> >> P.D.: I recall the heated discussion about leaving or taking away >> the 'c' from package names after Fedora Core became just Fedora. > > I was on the "take away" camp :-) Heh! ;) In any case, why would that affect the update is something I don't get (but I guess that's actually a Q for the rpm-list more then for this one). I mean, the package name is on both repo barman.noarch and all that needs to be done is compare versions, and there clearly 1.3.3 wins over 1.3.2 which is what happens. But why does rpm after that see both packages as different? I think I'll raise the Q in the rpm-list to see what comes out. -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 09/05/2014 09:51 PM, Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Oh, I see now: The previous package comes from Fedora repo with *fc20*
> suffix, and the update comes from our repo with *f20* suffix. You may
> want to exclude the package in Fedora repo. It worked for me that way.
I'm not convinced that is it, though something funky is sure going on.
By dist tag alone, rpm should prefer the new barman:
$ rpmdev-vercmp 1.3.3-1.f20 1.3.2-1.fc20
1.3.3-1.f20 > 1.3.2-1.fc20
and if you examine the package metadata, you'll see that %dist isn't
even preserved, it's just part of the %release tag.
# repoquery --qf '%{dist}' barman
Invalid querytag 'dist' for repo pkg: barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch
# repoquery --qf '%{name}' barman
barman
repoquery --qf '%{version}' barman
1.3.3
# repoquery --qf '%{release}' barman
1.f20
# repoquery barman
barman-0:1.3.3-1.f20.noarch
There's something not right, but I'm not sure the dist tag is the
explanation.
Additionally, I'm puzzled that on my Fedora 20 system I don't see a
barman in updates at all, only the PGDG
# yum --enablerepo updates list all barman
Installed Packages
barman.noarch 1.3.3-1.f20 @pgdg93
... and no, it's not found by repoquery either. I just don't have a
barman in updates here, yet it clearly exists at some level:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=514947
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Service,
On 09/04/2014 02:18 AM, Martín Marqués wrote: > > > Transaction check error: > file /etc/bash_completion.d/barman from install of > barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch conflicts with file from package > barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch If I manually install barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch I can reproduce this here, too: wget https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/barman/1.3.2/1.fc20/noarch/barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rpm -i barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm # and to cut yum out of the picture entirely: # yumdownloader --urls barman http://yum.postgresql.org/9.3/fedora/fedora-20-x86_64/barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch.rpm $ wget http://yum.postgresql.org/9.3/fedora/fedora-20-x86_64/barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch.rpm # rpm -Uvh barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch.rpm file /etc/bash_completion.d/barman from install of barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch conflicts with file from package barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch I don't think it's the dist tag at fault, but there is certainly something not working correctly here. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 09/05/2014 10:33 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > I don't think it's the dist tag at fault, but there is certainly > something not working correctly here. It's a packaging error. Compare: # rpm -qcp barman-1.3.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm /etc/barman/barman.conf /etc/bash_completion.d/barman/barman.bash_completion /etc/cron.d/barman /etc/logrotate.d/barman # rpm -qcp barman-1.3.3-1.f20.noarch.rpm /etc/barman.conf /etc/bash_completion.d/barman /etc/cron.d/barman /etc/logrotate.d/barman Note that barman 1.3.3 from PGDG tries to create the *file* /etc/bash_completion.d/barman, but it's already a *directory* in the Fedora package? -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi, On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 22:43 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > Note that barman 1.3.3 from PGDG tries to create the *file* > /etc/bash_completion.d/barman, but it's already a *directory* in the > Fedora package? That was the first thing that I checked, however fixing it does not solve our problem (though, I believe we need to fix it...) Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Вложения
El 05/09/14 11:55, Devrim Gündüz escribió: > > Hi, > > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 22:43 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Note that barman 1.3.3 from PGDG tries to create the *file* >> /etc/bash_completion.d/barman, but it's already a *directory* in >> the Fedora package? > > That was the first thing that I checked, however fixing it does not > solve our problem (though, I believe we need to fix it...) I personally think that the Fedora package sucks here. It's the first time I see a directory in /etc/bash_completion.d/ [root@endor ~]# ls -l /etc/bash_completion.d/ total 144 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 18 11:37 barman -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4566 Jun 26 10:41 createrepo_c.bash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8508 Jul 23 10:46 fedpkg.bash -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 54528 May 20 09:50 git -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 11736 Dec 21 2013 mercurial.sh -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4110 Aug 14 12:54 perf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15593 Jul 16 18:53 pulseaudio-bash-completion.sh -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1458 Aug 3 2013 redefine_filedir -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6836 Oct 19 2013 rpmdevtools.bash-completion -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2497 Aug 4 2013 source-highlight -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 11715 May 23 11:07 yum-utils.bash [root@endor ~]# ls -ld /etc/bash_completion.d/ drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Sep 5 12:06 /etc/bash_completion.d/ Why don't they just have a barman file there. Regards, -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services