Hi, probably this is not very useful for everybody, but it works in this way. 1) install yum-metadata-parser from the CentOS: rpm -Uvh \ http://ftp.chg.ru/pub/Linux/CentOS/4.8/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS/yum-metadata-parser-1.0-8.el4.centos.i386.rpm 2) move away two files: mv /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.py \ /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.py_ mv /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.pyc \ /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.pyc_ 3) now yum should works with repos: http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/5.0/generic/free/ http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/5.0/generic/non-free/ yum clean all yum -y --tsflags=test update On Fri, 7 May 2010, Valery Mitsyn wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 2010, Troy Dawson wrote: > >> Hi, >> Sorry, but we are concentrating on SL 5.5 right now. >> The one thing I did find before being distracted was that CentOS did >> several things into their yum that isn't in the standard yum. But you >> didn't give the source rpm for them, and I never got enough time to find >> CentOS's source rpm. so I'm not sure exactly what they did. > > Could it be in the yum-metadata-parser rpm which is in > require list of yum in centos? > One can test this case by installing yum-metadata-parser > from centos repo to SL4X. > >> Their changenotes say something along the lines >> "put in the usual change" >> >> Troy >> >> Cristina Aiftimiei wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> is there any news? >>> Sorry to disturb - but we are relly interested in having a solution. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Cristina >>> >>> >>> Troy Dawson wrote: >>>> Peter Sl??ik 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Best regards, Valery Mitsyn