Bug 390178

Summary:	Multiple versions of nscd installed
Product:	[openSUSE] openSUSE 11.0	Reporter:	Magnus Boman <captain.magnus>
Component:	libzypp	Assignee:	E-mail List <zypp-maintainers>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Duncan Mac-Vicar <dmacvicar>
Severity:	Normal
Priority:	P5 - None	CC:	mls
Version:	Factory
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	Other
OS:	Other
Whiteboard:
Found By:	---	Services Priority:
Business Priority:		Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---	IT Deployment:	---
Attachments:	zypper log test case

Description Magnus Boman 2008-05-14 10:41:32 UTC

Created attachment 215098 [details]
zypper log

As requested in Bug#384254

Doing a zypper dup gives me this;

The following packages are going to be downgraded:
  tpctl-kmp-pae kqemu-kmp-pae gspcav-kmp-pae 


The following NEW packages are going to be installed:
  yast2-samba-server yast2-samba-client perl-Digest-MD4 perl-Crypt-SmbHash 


The following packages are going to be REMOVED:
  gnome2-SuSE nscd nscd ncurses 


Overall download size: 900.2 M. After the operation, additional 4.5 M will be used.
Continue? [YES/no]: no

linux:/home/mboman/Desktop # rpm -q nscd
nscd-2.8-6
nscd-2.8-8
nscd-2.8-9


Everytime I hit Bug#384254, I've said "Ignore"

Attaching zypper logs and test case

Comment 1 Magnus Boman 2008-05-14 10:42:07 UTC

Created attachment 215100 [details]
test case

Comment 2 Stephan Kulow 2008-05-14 11:22:51 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 384254 ***

Comment 3 Magnus Boman 2008-05-14 11:25:34 UTC

Not a duplicate. I was asked to create a separate bug report for this.

Comment 4 Stephan Kulow 2008-05-14 11:31:47 UTC

I wonder why Jano wanted that. it's pretty standard rpm behaviour to only add if %post fails

Comment 5 Jan Kupec 2008-05-14 13:18:06 UTC

(In reply to comment #4 from Stephan Kulow)
> I wonder why Jano wanted that. it's pretty standard rpm behaviour to only add
> if %post fails

I didn't know. Weird. Isn't it a bug? Got foo-1.0 installed, updating to foo-1.1, %post fails (but files of foo-1.0 are already most probably overwitten), rpmdb shows foo-1.0 as installed. Is that really so? Seems like a bug to me.

Comment 6 Stephan Kulow 2008-05-14 13:29:07 UTC

you can name it bug, others name it broken by design.

Comment 7 Jan Kupec 2008-05-14 13:46:39 UTC

Magnus, the log does not contain the actual installation as you've chosen 'no', but coolo shed a light on the mystery, so no more logs needed. Thanx anyway, few more people learned something about rpm :O)

@coolo: so it has been there since ages and we're not gonna fix it now, right?

Comment 8 Michael Schröder 2008-05-14 13:59:47 UTC

What happens is that the new package is installed, but the old package is not yet removed. So you end up with a strange mixture of files and both versions installed.

Comment 9 Jan Kupec 2008-05-14 14:10:12 UTC

Yup. Quite a mess. I guess the uninstallation should be allowed to happen even if %post fails (and the scripts should count on that). Or?