m.richardson at ed
Oct 12, 2011, 3:13 AM
Post #3 of 4
(335 views)
Permalink
|
On 12/10/11 10:50, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Richardson wrote:
>> I've just tried to install an atrpms drbd-kmdl rpm on 64-bit SL6
>> (drbd-kmdl-2.6.32-131.12.1.el6.x86_64-8.4.0-31.el6.x86_64.rpm)
>>
>> The rpm installs successfully, but I then see odd behaviour from the rpm
>> database.
>>
>> If I split the name as queried from the database, I see the following:
>>
>> ]$ rpm -qa --queryformat '%{NAME}\n%{VERSION}\n%{RELEASE}\n' | grep
>> drbd-kmdl
>>
>> drbd-kmdl-2.6.32-131.12.1.el6.x86_64
>> 8.4.0
>> 31.el6
>>
>> However, if I then try to query that rpm based on the name field, I see:
>>
>> ]$ rpm -q drbd-kmdl-2.6.32-131.12.1.el6.x86_64
>> package drbd-kmdl-2.6.32-131.12.1.el6.x86_64 is not installed
>>
>> The name by which it does appear when queried is:
>>
>> ]$ rpm -q drbd-kmdl-2.6.32-131.12.1.el6.x86_64.x86_64
>> drbd-kmdl-2.6.32-131.12.1.el6.x86_64-8.4.0-31.el6.x86_64
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know if this is an issue with the rpm itself, or a bug in
>> rpmlib. Any suggestions as to what might be causing this?
>
> It looks funny indeed. Perhaps EL6's rpm is overzealous in parsing the
> input. Do you need to query with rpm -q? A workaround would be to query
> with rpm -qa ...\* | grep ...
>
> You can test whether this bug is in the rpm binary or rpmlib by using
> the python wrappers.
I initially discovered this problem using the wrappers to rpmlib, so I'm
pretty sure its in there, rather than the binary.
Should I elevate this to the appropriate rpmlib devs, or is that
something best done from your side?
Thanks,
Matthew
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|
signature.asc
