Hi,

is there any news?
Sorry to disturb - but we are relly interested in having a solution.

Thank you,
Cristina


Troy Dawson wrote:
> 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