Hi,
Question 1: Why do I have seemingly duplicate packages?
the x86_64 distribution (The distribution designed for Opteron's) has
both 64 bit, and 32 bit libraries, so you can run both 64 bit and 32 bit
programs. (Note: not all 32 bit programs run because not every library
is included)
By default, rpm does not show the arch extension when doing normal
queries. We have made an rpm that makes it so that rpm does, and this
can be installed by doing
yum -c /etc/yum.conf.contrib install SL_rpm_show_arch
We are planning on this being installed by default in S.L. 3.0.4.
x86_64 release.
You can also look by hand by using the --queryformat setting, such as
rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n" samba
Question 2: Why does yum work and apt doesn't?
This is one of those "vi versus emacs" questions. The short answer is I
don't know. I always use yum, and you will notice that yum is the
default automatic updates program.
I don't want to say that apt isn't any good, but when people list their
pro's and con's, this is one place where apt just plain doesn't work out
of the box.
We put apt into the distribution because people said they wanted it, but
none of the apt people have came forward to fix problems like this.
Maybe this e-mail will get us a fix.
For now, I have to say, don't use apt on a x86_64 based distribution.
Troy
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Greetings. We've just installed what we believe to be SL 3.0.3 for AMD
> on a dual-Opteron system here. (We "believe" because the manufacturer,
> Penguin, sent us the CD's; we didn't download the ISO's ourselves. It
> certainly LOOKS like 64-bit software, and we did reinstall the OS from
> scratch ourselves.)
>
> We have a number of Opteron systems, but the others are running RHEL.
>
> There seem to be 36 "duplicated" packages on this system. For instance:
>
> [root]# rpm -qa | grep samba-3.0.9-1.3E.1
> samba-3.0.9-1.3E.1
> samba-3.0.9-1.3E.1
>
> We also see the same general kinds of duplication on a dual-Opteron
> system running RHEL 3.0.3 WS. Perhaps this reflects the installation of
> both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of some packages? (But I don't know why
> we'd see that with Samba, for instance.)
>
> In any case, we seem to be able to use yum to apply updates to the
> system, but using apt-get gives us pages and pages of error messages.
> See the appended for a sample of both.
>
> Thus, I have two questions: (1) why, exactly, do we have the duplicated
> packages? (2) Why does yum work but apt not?
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> Appendix: apt-get failure, yum success
> ======================================
>
> [root]# apt-get update
> Get:1 ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm release [1064B]
> Fetched 1064B in 0s (1419B/s)
> Hit ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm/os pkglist
> Hit ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm/os release
> Hit ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm/updates pkglist
> Hit ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm/updates release
> Hit ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm/contrib pkglist
> Hit ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org 303/x86_64/apt-rpm/contrib release
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
>
> [root]# apt-get upgrade
> Reading Package Lists...
> Building Dependency Tree...
> You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> 4Suite: Depends: libc.so.6()(64bit)
> Depends: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
> Depends: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
> Canna-libs: Depends: libc.so.6()(64bit)
> Depends: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
> ElectricFence: Depends: libc.so.6()(64bit)
> Depends: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
> Depends: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
> .
> . [...literally thousands of lines...]
> .
> =================================================================
>
> [root]# yum upgrade
> Gathering header information file(s) from server(s)
> Server: SL 303 errata
> Server: SL 303 main
> Finding updated packages
> Downloading needed headers
> Finding obsoleted packages
> Resolving dependencies
> .Dependencies resolved
> I will do the following:
> [update: compat-db 4.0.14-5.x86_64]
> [update: compat-db 4.0.14-5.i386]
> I will install/upgrade these to satisfy the dependencies:
> [deps: compat-libstdc++ 7.3-2.96.128.i386]
> [deps: tcl 8.3.5-92.2.i386]
> Is this ok [y/N]: y
> Downloading Packages
> Getting compat-libstdc++-7.3-2.96.128.i386.rpm
> compat-libstdc++-7.3-2.96 100% |=========================| 1.0 MB
> 00:01
> Getting compat-db-4.0.14-5.x86_64.rpm
> compat-db-4.0.14-5.x86_64 100% |=========================| 3.7 MB
> 00:03
> Getting tcl-8.3.5-92.2.i386.rpm
> tcl-8.3.5-92.2.i386.rpm 100% |=========================| 699 kB
> 00:01
> Getting compat-db-4.0.14-5.i386.rpm
> compat-db-4.0.14-5.i386.r 100% |=========================| 3.4 MB
> 00:04
> Running test transaction:
> Test transaction complete, Success!
> tcl 100 % done 1/4
> compat-libstdc++ 100 % done 2/4
> compat-db 100 % done 3/4
> compat-db 100 % done 4/4
> Updated: compat-db 4.0.14-5.x86_64 compat-db 4.0.14-5.i386
> Dep Installed: compat-libstdc++ 7.3-2.96.128.i386 tcl 8.3.5-92.2.i386
> Transaction(s) Complete
>
> --
> Michael Hannon mailto:[log in to unmask]
> Dept. of Physics 530.752.4966
> University of California 530.752.4717 FAX
> Davis, CA 95616-8677
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/CSS CSI Group
__________________________________________________
|
