Bugzilla – Bug 679116
In-place distribution upgrade does not work because of changes in liblzma
Last modified: 2011-03-16 17:28:31 UTC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C) When using the in-place distibution upgrade method from an older openSUSE distribution as described here: http://de.opensuse.org/Upgrade, the distribution upgrade will fail. This seems to be due to liblzma package naming scheme haveing been changed. Thus, liblzma0-4.999.9beta is being removed first, rendering zypper itself useless. The distribution upgrade cannot be continued and leaves the system in an undefined state. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Use the instructions on the page http://de.opensuse.org/Upgrade Actual Results: During the "zypper dup" phase: ... Removing liblzma0-4.999.9beta-3.7 [done] Removing libpoppler5-0.12.3-5.1.1 [error] Removal of (26037)libpoppler5-0.12.3-5.1.1.x86_64(@System) failed: Error: Subprocess failed. Error: RPM failed: rpm: error while loading shared libraries: liblzma.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Abort, retry, ignore? [a/r/i] (a): i Removing libpython2_6-1_0-2.6.5-3.3.1 [error] Removal of (26041)libpython2_6-1_0-2.6.5-3.3.1.x86_64(@System) failed: Error: Subprocess failed. Error: RPM failed: rpm: error while loading shared libraries: liblzma.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Expected Results: liblzma should have been upgraded instead of being removed. There should be compatibility libraries in the new liblzma package and it should habe the same name as the old one. The changes in liblzma seem to have caused many problems, see also bugs #669205 and #677549. Although this feature is not officially supported, this bug causes a major problem for people who want to upgrade over the network (like rented root servers). It will most likely be problematic in an upcoming SLE release and should be fixed.
Seems to have been fixed at least partly. Whatever, the other bug #677425 was older anyway. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 677425 ***