Bug 157501

Summary:	YaST2 ist still installing i586 packages in x86_64 systems
Product:	[openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1	Reporter:	Forgotten User N1m2whZ-xl <forgotten_N1m2whZ-xl>
Component:	Update Problems	Assignee:	Klaus Kämpf <kkaempf>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:	Klaus Kämpf <kkaempf>
Severity:	Normal
Priority:	P5 - None	CC:	kukuk, suse-beta
Version:	Beta 7
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	x86-64
OS:	SuSE Linux 10.1
Whiteboard:
Found By:	Beta-Customer	Services Priority:
Business Priority:		Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---	IT Deployment:	---
Attachments:	/var/log/YaST2/y2log /var/log/YaST2/

Description Forgotten User N1m2whZ-xl 2006-03-12 22:12:47 UTC

I have used y2pmsh to upgrade my x86_64 system from 10.1 beta6 to today's factory state (beta8).
Everything worked well, the system booted well and is operating well.

Now I tried to use YaST2 again - changed installation sources to the factory tree and /pub/suse/10.1/inst-source-extra and then tried "system update".

YaST2 wanted to delete lots of packages, and I told to keep those.
It wanted to update some packages (like kernel and kernel-source) which I could not understand, but I let it run.
Then I see it is installing i586 versions...

Comment 1 Christian Boltz 2006-03-12 23:58:22 UTC

*** Bug 157505 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Forgotten User N1m2whZ-xl 2006-03-13 00:54:54 UTC

Created attachment 72475 [details]
/var/log/YaST2/y2log

This is the /var/log/YaST2/y2log file.

Comment 3 Klaus Kämpf 2006-03-13 10:52:46 UTC

Log is incomplete. Please provide all logs

Comment 4 Forgotten User N1m2whZ-xl 2006-03-13 11:04:07 UTC

Created attachment 72512 [details]
/var/log/YaST2/

tar.gz of /var/log/YaST2/

Comment 5 Klaus Kämpf 2006-03-13 12:35:38 UTC

Hmm, I can't see anything suspicious in the logs.
Can you be a bit more specific about the name and version of packages which might be installed with the wrong architecture ?

Comment 6 Forgotten User N1m2whZ-xl 2006-03-13 13:02:52 UTC

The manual repair action was:

rpm -e --nodeps fontconfig fontconfig-devel
rpm -Uhv fontconfig-2.3.93.20060224-3.x86_64.rpm
rpm -Uhv fontconfig-devel-2.3.93.20060224-3.x86_64.rpm

rpm -e --nodeps gnome-vfs2-32bit dbus-1-qt-32bit hal-32bit dbus-1-glib-32bit libgphoto2-32bit
rpm -e --nodeps dbus-1-0.60-19

rpm -Uhv --nodeps --force dbus-1-*
rpm -Uhv --nodeps --force readline-*
rpm -Uhv --nodeps --force fontconfig-*
rpm -Uhv --nodeps --force sysfsutils-*
rpm -Uhv --nodeps --force gd-*
rpm -Uhv --nodeps --force libgimpprint-*

Additionally the i586 packages kernel and kernel-source were to install, but gave errors (missing libreadline.so.5) so that I could cancel that.
y2logRPM does clearly show this, and it holds all infos you requested.
Please have a second look. Everything is listed there.

The wrong YaST2 actions happened at about 23:00 h (maybe a quarter hour before), the repair action began after 23:30 h.

Comment 7 Forgotten User N1m2whZ-xl 2006-03-13 13:04:18 UTC

All info is in y2logRPM.

Comment 8 Klaus Kämpf 2006-03-13 15:36:27 UTC

Ah, got it now. The factory repository was in an inconsistent state when you upgraded. It provided:
fontconfig-2.3.94-2.i586
fontconfig-2.3.93.20060224-3.x86_64

And since 2.3.94 > 2.3.93 the better package was choosen for upgrade.

Thorsten, Andreas, maybe we should prefer better architecture over better version during upgrade ??

Comment 9 Thorsten Kukuk 2006-03-13 15:38:20 UTC

I thought we did agree on that?

Comment 10 Andreas Jaeger 2006-03-13 15:39:47 UTC

Yes, this is the correct way.

Comment 11 Klaus Kämpf 2006-03-13 15:46:48 UTC

During normal package update (in the running system), the architecture will stay. 

At distribution upgrade, the best version is currently preferred which might lead to an architecture change. Thats what we're seeing here.

(And I'm 100% sure we'll see bugreports 'not best package choosen' if we prefer architecture over version ;-))

Comment 12 Klaus Kämpf 2006-03-13 15:54:55 UTC

Fixed.