Peter Slížik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe this list is the right place to report the following yum
> bug, which keeps causing wrinkles to the EGEE community. Apologies for
> the length, my intention is to provide as many details as possible.
>
> The problems started approx. on April 6, when people from the jpackage
> project changed the digest of their repo's digital signature from SHA
> to SHA1. (I think they just updated their createrepo package, because
> the "repomd.xml" files on my machines contained the text
> "<database_version>9</database_version>" before and
> "<database_version>10</database_version>" after the problem was first
> reported.) Following the change, SL4-based installations refused to
> cooperate, yielding the "[Errno 256] No more mirrors to try" error
> message upon "yum update". (SL5-based machines worked fine.) The issue
> was discussed on the LCG-ROLLOUT list and the discussion later moved
> to jpackage-discuss. People from the jpackage project then decided to
> return to the old SHA digest.
>
> After going back to SHA, a strange thing happened. For users who did
> not empty their metadata cache inbetween, the "yum update" command
> worked fine. But if they happened to either had run "yum clean all"
> (as was suggested by somebody on the list) or if they started with a
> fresh SL installation, "yum update" failed with the following error:
>
> File "__init__.py", line 260, in doSackSetup
> File "repos.py", line 287, in populateSack
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 96, in getPrimary
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 89, in _getbase
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 359, in updateSqliteCache
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 251, in addPrimary
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 197, in insertHash
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 449, in values
> File "sqlitecache.py", line 441, in __getitem__
> File "mdparser.py", line 73, in __getitem__
> KeyError: 'sourcerpm'
>
>
> Steps to reproduce the problem:
>
> 1. Create two virtual machines. Install CentOS 4.8 and Scientific
> Linux 4.8 on them.
> 2. Run "yum update" on both. This is just to reduce the number of
> yum's outputs later.
> 3. Download the jpackage repository to /etc/yum.repos.d/
> http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/glite/repos/3.1/jpackage.repo
> 4. Run "yum update". This will succeed on CentOS 4.8 and fail on SL 4.8.
>
>
> After some investigation, I found a strange thing. Though "yum
> --version" reports "2.4.3" on both platforms, the actual
> implementations differ. Apart from the obvious configuration stuff
> (e.g. cron.d files, /etc/init.d scripts) they differ also in the way
> they handle cache. The following files are actually different:
>
> config.py
> depsolve.py
> repos.py
>
> The CentOS implementation has also one additional file:
>
> storagefactory.py.
>
> Unfortunatelly, I wasn't able to find the actual cause of the error.
>
>
> If you need to compare the files without installing the whole
> distributions, please feel free to download the following archives:
>
> http://petersbytes.net/tmp/yum-2.4.3-4.el4.centos.noarch.rpm
> http://petersbytes.net/tmp/yum-2.4.3-10.SL.noarch.rpm
>
> There are two possible conclusions: either the CentOS developers
> messed with the implementation without increasing the version number,
> or the Upstream Vendor issued a new release without increasing the
> version number and Scientific Linux did not catch with them. Either
> way, I think the problem needs to be patched in SL, because I don't
> think that jpackage people will fix the problem on their part -
> they're testing their stuff on CentOS and everything works fine for
> them.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Peter Slizik
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the information and the detailed analysis.
I'm looking into this.
I am pretty sure that we did not take any files out of yum 2.4.3. We
changed a file or two, but never took any out. I'll look through
CentOS's yum rpm and see what the difference is and let you know if a
little bit.
Thanks
Troy
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/LSCS/CSI/USS Group
__________________________________________________
|