files belong to 2 (two) different versions of package?!

On Die, 18 Mai 2004 at 18:06 GMT, Joey Dewille <joey1968 DeleteThis @fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I did
> $ rpm -i package-6.1-109.i386.rpm
>
> followed by
> $ rpm -Uv --force package-6.1-110.i386.rpm
>
What do you need the --force for?

My my favourite method for updating:
#v+
rpm -Fvh --replacepkgs <packages>
#v-

This normally does the job. Probably you can replace "F" by "U", but
this could add extra-packages to your installation, which is normally
not desired.

> and now when I query ownership I get
> $ rpm -qf /usr/local/bin/foo
> package-6.1-109
> package-6.1-110
>
> This result is not what I expected.
> Version 110 should have replaced 109 and 109 should have been erased from the
> filesystem and from the rpm database.
> FYI, foo was the same and had identical ownership/permissions/etc. in both packages.
>
> There is only 1 question - why is rpm behaving so?

#v+
man rpm
#v-

> --Joey
>
>

HTH

--

Robert...

The short answer to you and to the previous poster D. Ganek is that I wanted to allow
the same version of the package to overwrite itself if requested to do so, and -U --force
works whether you are installing for the first time or upgrading.


"Robert W." <maril_manson.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c8fl02$6c9$05$2@news.t-online.com...
> On Die, 18 Mai 2004 at 18:06 GMT, Joey Dewille <joey1968.TakeThisOut@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hello group,
> >
> > I did
> > $ rpm -i package-6.1-109.i386.rpm
> >
> > followed by
> > $ rpm -Uv --force package-6.1-110.i386.rpm
> >
> What do you need the --force for?
>
> My my favourite method for updating:
> #v+
> rpm -Fvh --replacepkgs <packages>
> #v-
>
> This normally does the job. Probably you can replace "F" by "U", but
> this could add extra-packages to your installation, which is normally
> not desired.
>
> > and now when I query ownership I get
> > $ rpm -qf /usr/local/bin/foo
> > package-6.1-109
> > package-6.1-110
> >
> > This result is not what I expected.
> > Version 110 should have replaced 109 and 109 should have been erased from the
> > filesystem and from the rpm database.
> > FYI, foo was the same and had identical ownership/permissions/etc. in both packages.
> >
> > There is only 1 question - why is rpm behaving so?
>
> #v+
> man rpm
> #v-

With all due respect to the designers of rpm, the man page is terrible indeed,
and it doesn't answer the particular question I posed.
Very rarely have I seen users who get the rpm command line right the first time,
specially if it is a command they haven't used before or recently.
Had examples been added to the man page, it would have saved a lot of frustration
for self and others I know.
--Joey

On Mit, 19 Mai 2004 at 17:22 GMT, Joey Dewille <joey1968 RemoveThis @fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
[...]

> With all due respect to the designers of rpm, the man page is terrible indeed,
> and it doesn't answer the particular question I posed.
> Very rarely have I seen users who get the rpm command line right the first time,
> specially if it is a command they haven't used before or recently.
> Had examples been added to the man page, it would have saved a lot of frustration
> for self and others I know.
> --Joey
>
>

Ok, I found the manpage to be quite clear in compare to others. The
issue of typing the command-line correct from the first time on is
probably known to everyone, I think. This always needs some experience
with the program you use, but these experiences you have to make
yourself. Don't worry, it'll become better someday...
rpm is quite powerfull for managing installations. I love it!

--

Robert...