Bug 113246

Summary: installation overview provides wrong information
Product: [openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0 Reporter: Berthold Gunreben <bg>
Component: Update ProblemsAssignee: Michael Andres <ma>
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX QA Contact: Klaus Kämpf <kkaempf>
Severity: Normal    
Priority: P5 - None CC: jsrain, yast2-maintainers
Version: Beta 3   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: Other   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
Found By: Other Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---
Attachments: yast2 update information
/var/log/YaST2 tar file

Description Berthold Gunreben 2005-08-26 09:53:00 UTC 
when doing an update, packages tells me (sorry in german) 
 
* Zu aktualisierende Pakete: 0 
* Zu installierende neue Pakete: 697 
* Zu entfernende Pakete: 0 
 
what is obviously wrong. Most packages should just be updated, and it tells 
that it would just install new packages. 
 
Adding screenshot...
Comment 1 Berthold Gunreben 2005-08-26 09:53:49 UTC 
Created attachment 47735 [details]
yast2 update information
Comment 2 Jiri Srain 2005-08-26 11:38:59 UTC 
Please, add the log.
Comment 3 Berthold Gunreben 2005-08-26 11:58:57 UTC 
which one? /var/lib/YaST2 is 14MB big.
Comment 4 Jiri Srain 2005-08-26 12:02:38 UTC 
Tar and compress it all, I can't tell without looking inside them.
Comment 5 Berthold Gunreben 2005-08-26 12:36:05 UTC 
Created attachment 47763 [details]
/var/log/YaST2 tar file
Comment 6 Jiri Srain 2005-08-26 12:56:54 UTC 
Michael, the  
  
Pkg::GetPackages (`installed, true)  
  
function returned empty list (according to the log, see y2log-1, grep for  
'Selected.*Install'. I cannot reproduce it on my system. 
  
Amy idea why? I haven't found any error regarding target initialization...
Comment 7 Berthold Gunreben 2005-08-26 13:18:53 UTC 
I just found, that there are packages that are no more in the rpm database. 
For example the package gbuffy: 
 
rpm -qf $(which gbuffy) 
file /usr/bin/gbuffy is not owned by any package 
 
I guess, that only the default packages have been updated, and all others are 
still there in an old version. 
 
machine is roth.suse.de
Comment 8 Berthold Gunreben 2006-02-14 10:37:06 UTC 
I guess that there has been a corrupt rpm database. This is not reproduceable anymore.