On Sun, 9 May 2010, Valery Mitsyn wrote: > 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_ 2a) copy 3 files: /bin/cp -p /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/sqlitecachec.py \ /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.py /bin/cp -p /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/sqlitecachec.pyc \ /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.pyc /bin/cp -p /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/sqlitecachec.pyo \ /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.pyo > 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