Search Results

Search found 769 results on 31 pages for 'rpm'.

Page 1/31 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Alien deletes .deb when converting from .rpm

  - by Andre

  I'm trying to convert .rpm to .deb using alien. sudo alien -k libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Alien says that: libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.deb generated But when I check the folder - there is just original .rpm and no .deb. Also - I can see that for a split second there is a .deb file in a folder. so it looks like alien create .deb and deletes it right away. I suspect that it's maybe because I run 64 bit os and package is 32? Can somebody explain why alien deletes .deb automatically? Verbose output: LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R date -R chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 libtetra_1.0.0-3_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0 Very Verbose output LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm libtetra LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 1.0.0 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 2 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm i386 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm - First RPM Package LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm GPL and LGPL (Version2) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Name : libtetra Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.0.0 Vendor: Panasonic Communications Co., Ltd. Release : 2 Build Date: Tue 27 Apr 2010 05:16:40 AM EDT Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM: libtetra-1.0.0-2.src.rpm Size : 31808 License: GPL and LGPL (Version2) Signature : (none) URL : http://panasonic.net/pcc/support/fax/world.htm Summary : Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. Description : This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm /usr/lib/libtetra.so /usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 63 blocks chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 dh_testdir dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_clean -k -d dh_clean: No packages to build. dh_installdirs dh_installdocs dh_installchangelogs find . -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 -not -name debian -print0 | \ xargs -0 -r -i cp -a {} debian/ dh_compress dh_makeshlibs dh_installdeb dh_shlibdeps dh_gencontrol dh_md5sums dh_builddeb libtetra_1.0.0-2_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0

  Read the article

• Alien deletes .deb when converting from .rpm

  - by Stann

  I'm trying to convert .rpm to .deb using alien. sudo alien -k libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Alien says that: libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.deb generated But when I check the folder - there is just original .rpm and no .deb. Also - I can see that for a split second there is a .deb file in a folder. so it looks like alien create .deb and deletes it right away. I suspect that it's maybe because I run 64 bit os and package is 32? Can somebody explain why alien deletes .deb automatically? Verbose output: LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R date -R chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 libtetra_1.0.0-3_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0 Very Verbose output LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{NAME} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm libtetra LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{VERSION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 1.0.0 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{RELEASE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm 2 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{ARCH} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm i386 LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{CHANGELOGTEXT} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm - First RPM Package LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{SUMMARY} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{DESCRIPTION} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREFIXES} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{POSTUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREUN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{LICENSE} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm GPL and LGPL (Version2) LANG=C rpm -qp --queryformat %{PREIN} libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm (none) LANG=C rpm -qcp libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm rpm -qpi libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Name : libtetra Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.0.0 Vendor: Panasonic Communications Co., Ltd. Release : 2 Build Date: Tue 27 Apr 2010 05:16:40 AM EDT Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM: libtetra-1.0.0-2.src.rpm Size : 31808 License: GPL and LGPL (Version2) Signature : (none) URL : http://panasonic.net/pcc/support/fax/world.htm Summary : Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. Description : This software is Panasonic KX-MC6000 series Printer Driver for Linux. You can print from applications by using CUPS(Common Unix Printing System) which is the printing system for Linux. Other functions for KX-MC6000 series are not supported by this software. LANG=C rpm -qpl libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm /usr/lib/libtetra.so /usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | lzma -t -q > /dev/null 2>&1 rpm2cpio libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm | (cd libtetra-1.0.0; cpio --extract --make-directories --no-absolute-filenames --preserve-modification-time) 2>&1 63 blocks chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./ chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/./usr/lib chown 0:0 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0//usr/lib/libtetra.so.1.0.0 mkdir libtetra-1.0.0/debian date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 date -R Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:03:58 -0500 chmod 755 libtetra-1.0.0/debian/rules debian/rules binary 2>&1 dh_testdir dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_clean -k -d dh_clean: No packages to build. dh_installdirs dh_installdocs dh_installchangelogs find . -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 -not -name debian -print0 | \ xargs -0 -r -i cp -a {} debian/ dh_compress dh_makeshlibs dh_installdeb dh_shlibdeps dh_gencontrol dh_md5sums dh_builddeb libtetra_1.0.0-2_i386.deb generated find libtetra-1.0.0 -type d -exec chmod 755 {} ; rm -rf libtetra-1.0.0 Resolution Oh well. It looks like it's perhaps a bug? or I don't know. I simply installed 32-bit version of Ubuntu in VirtualBox and converted package there. For some reason I couldn't convert 32-bit package in 64 OS. and that is that. If someone ever finds the reason ffor this behavior - plz. post somewhere in comments. Thanks

  Read the article

• rpm rollback ignoring rpms - no error output

  - by John H

  Issue rpm rollback is not working with a set of repackaged rpms created in the last couple days, but does work with more recent ones. [root@host1 repackage]# ls -l zsh-4.2.6-* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1788283 Apr 10 2011 zsh-4.2.6-3.el5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1788691 Aug 18 04:38 zsh-4.2.6-5.el5.i386.rpm [root@host1 repackage]# rpm -q zsh zsh-4.2.6-6.el5 [root@host1 repackage]# rpm --test -Uvh --rollback 'Aug 18 01:00' [root@host1 repackage]# rpm -e zsh [root@host1 repackage]# [root@host1 repackage]# ls -l zsh* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1788283 Apr 10 2011 zsh-4.2.6-3.el5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1788691 Aug 18 04:38 zsh-4.2.6-5.el5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1789064 Aug 20 09:06 zsh-4.2.6-6.el5.i386.rpm [root@host1 repackage]# cp zsh-4.2.6-6.el5.i386.rpm /tmp [root@host1 repackage]# rpm --test -Uvh --rollback 'Aug 18 01:00' Rollback packages (+1/-0) to Mon Aug 20 09:02:16 2012 (0x50323558): Preparing... ########################################### [100%] Cleaning up repackaged packages: Removing /var/spool/repackage/zsh-4.2.6-6.el5.i386.rpm: [root@host1 repackage]# ls -l zsh-4.2.6-* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1788283 Apr 10 2011 zsh-4.2.6-3.el5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1788691 Aug 18 04:38 zsh-4.2.6-5.el5.i386.rpm [root@host1 repackage]# cp /tmp/zsh-4.2.6-6.el5.i386.rpm . [root@host1 repackage]# rpm -Uvh --rollback 'Aug 18 01:00' Rollback packages (+1/-0) to Mon Aug 20 09:06:05 2012 (0x5032363d): Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:zsh ########################################### [ 50%] Cleaning up repackaged packages: Removing /var/spool/repackage/zsh-4.2.6-6.el5.i386.rpm: [root@host1 repackage]# rpm --test -Uvh --rollback 'April 9' [root@host1 repackage]# Now, if I run my test commands with -Uvvh I get debug messages to stderror which shows me that rpm reads each of the rpm files in /var/spool/repackage. The only interesting bit is the "expected size" but after searching, the expected size should be different, as it records the files as they are on the filesystem. D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages joinenv D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages rdonly mode=0x0 D: locked db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Installtid rdonly mode=0x0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Pubkeys rdonly mode=0x0 D: read h# 769 Header sanity check: OK D: ========== DSA pubkey id 53268101 37017186 (h#769) D: read h# 32 Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 D: read h# 40 Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 ... D: read h# 1753 Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 D: Expected size: 3628918 = lead(96)+sigs(344)+pad(0)+data(3628478) D: Actual size: 3583695 D: /var/spool/repackage/Deployment_Guide-en-US-5.2-11.noarch.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 D: Expected size: 1100789 = lead(96)+sigs(344)+pad(0)+data(1100349) D: Actual size: 1109281 D: /var/spool/repackage/NetworkManager-0.7.0-10.el5_5.2.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 D: Expected size: 1098167 = lead(96)+sigs(344)+pad(0)+data(1097727) D: Actual size: 1106179 D: /var/spool/repackage/NetworkManager-0.7.0-9.el5.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 D: Expected size: 84351 = lead(96)+sigs(344)+pad(0)+data(83911) D: Actual size: 85378 ... D: Expected size: 1788276 = lead(96)+sigs(344)+pad(0)+data(1787836) D: Actual size: 1788691 D: /var/spool/repackage/zsh-4.2.6-5.el5.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 37017186 D: --- erase h#1758 D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Pubkeys D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Installtid D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: May free Score board((nil)) I am able to copy these rpms out of the repackage directory and if I run them through cpio, extract the files. I also tried backing up and rebuilding the rpm database - no change. System Information: RHEL 5.8 rpm 4.4.2.3 /etc/yum.conf tsflags=repackage /etc/rpm/macros %_repackage_all_erasures 1

  Read the article

• RPM Spec How to specify in package so that previous RPM is removed

  - by user123819

  Question: What do I put in the foo.spec file so that the rpm's will remove the previous rpm before installing? Description: I have created a spec file that creates rpm's for a few packages that use the same source and provide the same service, each with a slightly different configuration. E.g. they each provide the same "capability" Here's an example of the essentials that my .spec file looks like: %define version 1234 %define name foo %define release 1 %define pkgname %{name}-%{version}-%{release} Name: %{name} Version: %{version} Release: %{release} Provides: %{name} %package one Summary: Summary for foo-one Group: %{group} Obsoletes: %{name} <= %{version} Provides: %{name} = %{version} %description one Blah blah blah %package two Summary: Summary for foo-two Group: %{group} Obsoletes: %{name} <= %{version} Provides: %{name} = %{version} %description two Blah blah blah # %prep, %install, %build and %clean are pretty simple # and omitted here for brevity sake %files one %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_prefix}/%{pkgname} %files two %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_prefix}/%{pkgname} When I install the first one, it installs ok. I then remove the first one, and then install the second one, that works fine too. I then install the first one, followed immediately by installing the second one, and they both install, one over the other, but, I was expecting that the second one would be removed before installing the second. Example session: # rpmbuild foo and copy rpms to yum repo $ yum install foo-one ... $ yum list installed|grep foo foo-one.noarch 1234-1 @myrepo $ yum install foo-two ...[Should say that it is removing foo-one, but does not]... $ yum list installed|grep foo foo-one.noarch 1234-1 @myrepo foo-two.noarch 1234-1 @myrepo $ rpm -q --provides foo-one foo = 1234 foo-one = 1234-1 $ rpm -q --provides foo-two foo = 1234 foo-two = 1234-1 What do I put in the foo.spec file so that the rpm's will remove the previous rpm before installing? Thank you, .dave.

  Read the article

• Sun-JRE on CentOS-4.8 RPM error: post-install scriptlet failed, exit status 5

  - by Emyr

  I have a server with CentOS 4.8 installed. The provided is rubbish, but there's only a few months left, and they're busy being sued by Chase bank, so I doubt I can get CentOS 5. I wiped the server clean using Virtuozzo, and found that the default image is VERY empty. I even had to install yum myself. I've reached the point where I want to install TomCat. I downloaded the Sun JRE as a .rpm.bin file, did chmod a+x and ran it. That produced a .rpm file, which I tried installing: [root@host java]# rpm -Uvh jre-6u20-linux-i586.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:jre ########################################### [100%] Unpacking JAR files... rt.jar... jsse.jar... charsets.jar... localedata.jar... plugin.jar... javaws.jar... deploy.jar... error: %post(jre-1.6.0_20-fcs.i586) scriptlet failed, exit status 5 [root@host java]# rpm -evv jre-6u20-linux-i586.rpm D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages joinenv D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages rdonly mode=0x0 D: locked db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Name rdonly mode=0x0 error: package jre-6u20-linux-i586.rpm is not installed D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Name D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages [root@host java]# rpm -qi --scripts jre-6u20-linux-i586.rpm package jre-6u20-linux-i586.rpm is not installed [root@host java]# I couldn't find any results on Google for any parts of that error message, and I have very little experience of rpm (I usually use Debian). Is this a broken package, or am I missing something or some setting?

  Read the article

• CentOS RPM database trashed, "rpm --rebuilddb" won't fix, can I recover using /var/lib/rpm/ from a 2

  - by user18330

  My RPM database is shot, neither rpm or yum works. Supposedly "rpm --rebuilddb" will fix it, but it doesn't in my case. This server has three sister servers that are basically identical, and have working RPM databases. I tried copying /var/lib/rpm/ from working server to the sick one, but that didn't fix it. Any ideas of how I can use good server's rpm to fix the sick one?

  Read the article

• Verification of downloaded package with rpm

  - by moooeeeep

  I wanted to install a package on CentOS 6 via rpm (e.g., the current epel-release). EDIT: Of course I would always prefer the installation via yum but somehow I failed to get that specific package installed using this normal approach. As such, the EPEL/FAQ recommends Version 2. As I'm downloading the package through an insecure channel (http) I wanted to make sure that the integrity of the file is verified using information that is not provided with the downloaded file itself. Is this especially true for all of these approaches? I've seen various approaches to this on the internet: Version 1 rpm -ivh http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm Version 2 rpm -Uvh http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm Version 3 wget http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm rpm --import https://fedoraproject.org/static/0608B895.txt rpm -K epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm rpm -i epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm I do not know rpm very well, so I wondered how they might differ? My guess (after reading the manpage) is that the first should only be used when the package is previously not installed, the second would additionally remove previous versions of the package after installation, the first two omit some verification steps before the actual installation that are done by rpm -K. So my main questions at this point are Are my guesses correct or am I missing something? Is the rpm --import ... implicitly done for the first two approaches as well, and if not, isn't it necessary to do so after all? Are these additional checks performed by rpm -K ... any relevant? What is the best (most secure, most reliable, most maintainable, ...) way of installing packages via rpm in general?

  Read the article

• BUILDROOT files during RPM generation

  - by khmarbaise

  Currently i have the following spec file to create a RPM. The spec file is generated by maven plugin to produce a RPM out of it. The question is: will i find files which are mentioned in the spec file after the rpm generation inside the BUILDROOT/SPECS/SOURCES/SRPMS structure? %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0 Name: rpm-1 Version: 1.0 Release: 1 Summary: rpm-1 License: 2009 my org Distribution: My App Vendor: my org URL: www.my.org Group: Application/Collectors Packager: my org Provides: project Requires: /bin/sh Requires: jre >= 1.5 Requires: BASE_PACKAGE PreReq: dependency Obsoletes: project autoprov: yes autoreq: yes BuildRoot: /home/build/.jenkins/jobs/rpm-maven-plugin/workspace/target/it/rpm-1/target/rpm/rpm-1/buildroot %description %install if [ -e $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ]; then mv /home/build/.jenkins/jobs/rpm-maven-plugin/workspace/target/it/rpm-1/target/rpm/rpm-1/tmp-buildroot/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT else mv /home/build/.jenkins/jobs/rpm-maven-plugin/workspace/target/it/rpm-1/target/rpm/rpm-1/tmp-buildroot $RPM_BUILD_ROOT fi ln -s /usr/myusr/app $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/myusr/app2 ln -s /tmp/myapp/somefile $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/tmp/myapp/somefile2 ln -s name.sh $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/myusr/app/bin/oldname.sh %files %defattr(-,myuser,mygroup,-) %dir "/usr/myusr/app" "/usr/myusr/app2" "/tmp/myapp/somefile" "/tmp/myapp/somefile2" "/usr/myusr/app/lib" %attr(755,myuser,mygroup) "/usr/myusr/app/bin/start.sh" %attr(755,myuser,mygroup) "/usr/myusr/app/bin/filter-version.txt" %attr(755,myuser,mygroup) "/usr/myusr/app/bin/name.sh" %attr(755,myuser,mygroup) "/usr/myusr/app/bin/name-Linux.sh" %attr(755,myuser,mygroup) "/usr/myusr/app/bin/filter.txt" %attr(755,myuser,mygroup) "/usr/myusr/app/bin/oldname.sh" %dir "/usr/myusr/app/conf" %config "/usr/myusr/app/conf/log4j.xml" "/usr/myusr/app/conf/log4j.xml.deliver" %prep echo "hello from prepare" %pre -p /bin/sh #!/bin/sh if [ -s "/etc/init.d/myapp" ] then /etc/init.d/myapp stop rm /etc/init.d/myapp fi %post #!/bin/sh #create soft link script to services directory ln -s /usr/myusr/app/bin/start.sh /etc/init.d/myapp chmod 555 /etc/init.d/myapp %preun #!/bin/sh #the argument being passed in indicates how many versions will exist #during an upgrade, this value will be 1, in which case we do not want to stop #the service since the new version will be running once this script is called #during an uninstall, the value will be 0, in which case we do want to stop #the service and remove the /etc/init.d script. if [ "$1" = "0" ] then if [ -s "/etc/init.d/myapp" ] then /etc/init.d/myapp stop rm /etc/init.d/myapp fi fi; %triggerin -- dependency, dependency1 echo "hello from install" %changelog * Tue May 23 2000 Vincent Danen <[email protected]> 0.27.2-2mdk -update BuildPreReq to include rep-gtk and rep-gtkgnome * Thu May 11 2000 Vincent Danen <[email protected]> 0.27.2-1mdk -0.27.2 * Thu May 11 2000 Vincent Danen <[email protected]> 0.27.1-2mdk -added BuildPreReq -change name from Sawmill to Sawfish The problem i found is that the files (filter.txt in particular) after the generation process on a Ubuntu system but not on SuSE system. Which might be caused by different rpm versions ? Currently we have an integration test which fails based on the non existing of the file (filter.txt under a buildroot folder?)

  Read the article

• rpm build from src file

  - by danielrutledge

  Hi all, I'm trying to build from a *.src.rpm file on FC 12 in such a way that the files are distributed a across my system as they would with a normal binary build (in this case, *.h files end up in /usr/include). When I ran rpmbuild, the headers weren't present. Here's my rpmbuild command: [root@localhost sphirewalld]# rpm -ivv /home/dan/Downloads/gtest-1.3.0-2.20090601svn257.fc12.src.rpm ============== /home/dan/Downloads/gtest-1.3.0-2.20090601svn257.fc12.src.rpm Expected size: 489395 = lead(96)+sigs(180)+pad(4)+data(489115) Actual size: 489395 loading keyring from pubkeys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key couldn't find any keys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key loading keyring from rpmdb opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages cdb:mpool:joinenv opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages rdonly mode=0x0 locked db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Name rdonly mode=0x0 read h# 931 Header sanity check: OK added key gpg-pubkey-57bbccba-4a6f97af to keyring read h# 1327 Header sanity check: OK added key gpg-pubkey-7fac5991-4615767f to keyring read h# 1420 Header sanity check: OK added key gpg-pubkey-16ca1a56-4a100959 to keyring read h# 1896 Header sanity check: OK added key gpg-pubkey-a3a882c1-4a1009ef to keyring Using legacy gpg-pubkey(s) from rpmdb /home/dan/Downloads/gtest-1.3.0-2.20090601svn257.fc12.src.rpm: Header SHA1 digest: OK (3e98ed9b1631395d417e00f35c83ebe588ea9d3b) added source package [0] found 1 source and 0 binary packages Expected size: 489395 = lead(96)+sigs(180)+pad(4)+data(489115) Actual size: 489395 InstallSourcePackage at: psm.c:232: Header SHA1 digest: OK (3e98ed9b1631395d417e00f35c83ebe588ea9d3b) gtest-1.3.0-2.20090601svn257.fc12 ========== Directories not explicitly included in package: 0 /root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ 1 /root/rpmbuild/SPECS/ ========== warning: user mockbuild does not exist - using root warning: group mockbuild does not exist - using root fini 100664 1 ( 0, 0) 478034 /root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/gtest-1.3.0.tar.bz2;4ba93ce1 unknown warning: user mockbuild does not exist - using root warning: group mockbuild does not exist - using root fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 30505 /root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/gtest-svnr257.patch;4ba93ce1 unknown warning: user mockbuild does not exist - using root warning: group mockbuild does not exist - using root fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 2732 /root/rpmbuild/SPECS/gtest.spec;4ba93ce1 unknown GZDIO: 63 reads, 511788 total bytes in 0.005930 secs closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Name closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages Thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• Installing rpm module of Python for yum

  - by vito

  I've installed Python and yum from source (configure, make, make install), not using RPMs because that's leading to several other issues. So when I executed: # yum update ... I get the following error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/yum", line 22, in <module> import yummain File "/usr/share/yum/yummain.py", line 22, in <module> import clientStuff File "/usr/share/yum/clientStuff.py", line 18, in <module> import rpm ImportError: No module named rpm Now because I've installed yum and python from source, do I need to install Python's rpm module from source, too? Because installing the rpm for this module lead to the following error: # rpm -vih rpm-python-3.0.4-6x.i386.rpm warning: rpm-python-3.0.4-6x.i386.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID db42a60e error: Failed dependencies: python >= 1.5.2 is needed by rpm-python-3.0.4-6x.i386 libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-python-3.0.4-6x.i386 librpm.so.0 is needed by rpm-python-3.0.4-6x.i386 Suggested resolutions: /var/spool/up2datepython-2.3.4-14.7.el4.x86_64.rpm I tried searching for the source of this module, but I couldn't find it. Any help in installing this module is appreciated. Thanks for your time. Other info: # python -V Python 2.6.5

  Read the article

• RPM issues after signing JDK 1.6 64-bit

  - by organicveggie

  I'm trying to sign the Java JDK 1.6u21 64-bit RPM on CentOS 5.5 for use with Spacewalk and I'm running into problems. It seems to sign okay, but then when I check the signature it seems to be missing the key I just used to sign it. Yet RPM shows the key in it's list... # rpm --addsign jdk-6u21-linux-amd64.rpm Enter pass phrase: Pass phrase is good. jdk-6u21-linux-amd64.rpm: gpg: WARNING: standard input reopened gpg: WARNING: standard input reopened # rpm --checksig -v jdk-6u21-linux-amd64.rpm jdk-6u21-linux-amd64.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID ecfd98a5 MD5 digest: OK (650e0961e20d4a44169b68e8f4a1691b) V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID ecfd98a5 Yet I have the key imported (edited for privacy): # rpm -qa gpg-pubkey* |grep ecfd98a5 gpg-pubkey-ecfd98a5-4caa4a4c # rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-ecfd98a5-4caa4a4c Name : gpg-pubkey Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : ecfd98a5 Vendor: (none) Release : 4caa4a4c Build Date: Mon 04 Oct 2010 10:20:49 PM CDT Install Date: Mon 04 Oct 2010 10:20:49 PM CDT Build Host: localhost Group : Public Keys Source RPM: (none) Size : 0 License: pubkey Signature : (none) Summary : gpg(FirstName LastName <[email protected]>) Description : -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: rpm-4.4.2.3 (NSS-3) ...key goes here... =gKjN-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- And I'm definitely running a 64-bit version of CentOS: # uname -a Linux spacewalk.mycompany.corp 2.6.18-194.11.4.el5 #1 SMP Tue Sep 21 05:04:09 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Without a valid signature, Spacewalk refuses to install the RPM unless I completely disable signature checking. I have tried this with two different keys and two different users on the same machine without any success. Any bright ideas?

  Read the article

• alien deletes .deb automatically while converting from .rpm

  - by Andre

  I'm trying to convert .rpm to .deb using alien. alien -k libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.rpm Alien says that: libtetra-1.0.0-2.i386.deb generated But when I check the folder - there is just original .rpm and no .deb. Also - I can see that for a split second there is a .deb file in a folder. so it looks like alien create .deb and deletes it right away. I suspect that it's maybe because I run 64 bit os and package is 32? Can somebody explain why alien deletes .deb automatically?

  Read the article

• rpm installation error

  - by JiminyCricket

  im trying to install an RPM compat-db-4.1.25-9 on oracle linux enterprise, since its required to install WebCenter...however the rpm installation is throwing a warning and then not working [root@devsebl downloads]# rpm -i compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm warning: compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 9b3c94f4 [root@devsebl downloads]# rpm -q compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm package compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm is not installed any idea what that warning means and why its crashing there? i tried to use Yum, but its not available i guess: [root@devsebl downloads]# yum search compat-db Loaded plugins: security Warning: No matches found for: compat-db No Matches found

  Read the article

• installing rpm packages on ubuntu

  - by Hulk

  In ubuntu i have downloaded flash rpm,how to install it.i am new to ubuntu and i have tried the following alien -k flash-plugin-10.0.45.2-release.i386.rpm alien -i flash-plugin-10.0.45.2-release.i386.rpm rpm -i flash-plugin-10.0.45.2-release.i386.rpm //this works in rhel versions The above doesn't seem to work.. Thanks..

  Read the article

• mod_ssl RPM conflict

  - by 0A0D

  I build Apache httpd into an RPM using these sites: http://erikwebb.net/blog/compile-and-install-apache-24-red-hat-enterprise-linux-rhel-6-or-centos-6 http://ramblin-dude.blogspot.com/2013/04/compiling-rpm-for-httpd-on-rhel-57.html I was successful at building apr* and httpd*. However, when I try to install httpd using rpm -Uvh httpd-devel-2.2.25-1.x86_64.rpm httpd-2.2.25-1.x86_64.rpm mod_ssl-2.2.25-1.x86_64.rpm I get the following error: package mod_ssl-2.2.3-82.el5_9.x86_64 (which is newer than mod_ssl-2.2.25-1.x86_64) is already installed. I have httpd 2.2.3-82 installed. Do I need to remove it first? Seems counterintuitive.

  Read the article

• How to build the rpm package with SHA-256 checksum for files?

  - by larrycai

  In standard alone RHEL 6.4 rpm build environment, the rpm packages is generated with SHA-256 check sum, which is gotten by command rpm -qp --dump xxx.rpm [user@redhat64 abc]$ rpm -qp --dump package/rpm/abc-1.0.1-1.x86_64.rpm .. /opt/company/abc/abc/1.0.1-1/bin/start.sh 507 1398338016 d8820685b6446ee36a85cc1f7387d14537d6f8bf5ce4c5a4ccd2f70e9066c859 0100750 user abcc 0 .. While if it is build in docker environment (still RHEL6.4) the checksum is md5 UPDATE Use Ubuntu 14.04 as docker server, Redhat6.4 is the container inside [user@c1cbdf51d189 abc]$ rpm -qp --dump package/rpm/abc-1.0.1-1.x86_64.rpm .. /opt/company/abc/abc/1.0.1-1/bin/start.sh 507 1401952578 f229759944ba77c3c8ba2982c55bbe70 0100750 user abcc 0 .. If I checked the real file, the file is the same [user@c1cbdf51d189 1.0.1-1]$ sha256sum bin/start.sh d8820685b6446ee36a85cc1f7387d14537d6f8bf5ce4c5a4ccd2f70e9066c859 bin/start.sh [user@c1cbdf51d189 1.0.1-1]$ md5sum bin/start.sh f229759944ba77c3c8ba2982c55bbe70 bin/start.sh How I configure rpmbuild to let generated rpm file is SHA-256 based ?

  Read the article

• Problem in converting .rpm file into .deb file using alien in ubuntu

  - by Sunil Kumar Sahoo

  Hi I have converted a i336.rpm file into .deb file in ubuntu using alien successfully. but I am getting the following error while converting i586.rpm file of the same application into .deb file Unpacking of 'app-1-1.i586.rpm' failed at /usr/share/perl5/Alien/Package/Rpm.pm line 155. I donot know how to resolve this type of issue

  Read the article

• Error while compiling/installing PHP with FPM for RPM on Centos 5.4 x64

  - by Raymond

  Hi, I'm trying to make an RPM with PHP 5.3.1 and PHP-FPM 0.6 for CentOS 5.4. So far it goes quite well, but when rpmbuild gets to the installation phase it fails with the following error: Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.63379 + umask 022 + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/php-5.3.1/fpm-build/ + make install Installing PHP SAPI module: fpm Installing PHP CLI binary: /usr/bin/ cp: cannot create regular file `/usr/bin/#INST@12668#': Permission denied make: *** [install-cli] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.63379 (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.63379 (%install) I am running rpmbuild as a normal user, so it's understandable that it will fail to install anything into /usr/bin, but it shouldn't try to install anything outside the buildroot in the first place. I have however specified the BuildRoot in the header of the spec file and I can see it is passed correctly to the make install command. Does anyone have some idea of what is going wrong here? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• What is the correct dependency rpm for libcurl.so.3

  - by SephMerah

  So I have a failed dependency and I am having trouble downloading the correct rpm. The error is libcurl.so.3()(64bit) is needed. I have Centos 6 and I have looking in this site for the correct rpm. The problem though is, and this is another place where linux fails in being intuitive, is that the rpm name is different than the dependency name. So it might be a curl3 rpm or a libcurl3 rpm or I have no idea. Anyone know which one it is?

  Read the article

• rpm installation error

  - by JiminyCricket

  im trying to install an RPM compat-db-4.1.25-9 on oracle linux enterprise, since its required to install WebCenter...however the rpm installation is throwing a warning and then not working [root@devsebl downloads]# rpm -i compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm warning: compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 9b3c94f4 [root@devsebl downloads]# rpm -q compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm package compat-db-4.1.25-9.rpm is not installed any idea what that warning means and why its crashing there? i tried to use Yum, but its not available i guess: [root@devsebl downloads]# yum search compat-db Loaded plugins: security Warning: No matches found for: compat-db No Matches found

  Read the article

• RPM Version Issue and won't install

  - by Tiffany Walker

  Get this error when trying to install an RPM: rpm -Uvh rpmforge-release-0.5.3-1.el6.rf.x86_64.rpm warning: rpmforge-release-0.5.3-1.el6.rf.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 6b8d79e6 error: Failed dependencies: rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 is needed by rpmforge-release-0.5.3-1.el6.rf.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 is needed by rpmforge-release-0.5.3-1.el6.rf.x86_64 uname -a Linux host 2.6.32-042stab075.2 #1 SMP Tue Mar 5 15:21:53 MSK 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux What do I need to do to fix this EDIT: Fixed. I'll answer this in 2 days. I assumed the server was CentOS 6 since I don't use 5 any more. ;/

  Read the article

• MacBook Pro - 7200 vs 5400 rpm drives - Heat and Noise

  - by webworm

  I am looking at a new 15" MacBook Pro for development purposes. I am planning to run a Virtual Machine for about 50% of my work (Windows 7 x64, IIS, SQL Server, and VS 2010). The upgrade from a 5400 rpm drive to a 7200 rpm is only $45. From what I understand the faster rotational speed of the 7200 rpm drive will help virtual machine performance. However, I am concerned that additional heat and fan noise might be an issue. I will be running mostly on A/C power so decreased battery life is not a major concern for me. Since I would be running with a Core i7 processor which gives off a fair amount of heat already I was wondering if it might be best to stay at 5400 rpm for the hard drive. What do you all think? Thanks!

  Read the article

• rpm file conflict after alien conversion

  - by Zitrax

  I have a program for which I generate a .deb file. The .deb file works fine on the systems I have tried it on (also tested with lintian). Previously it has worked to use alien to convert this to .rpm and install it on Suse. However it is now about a year since I tried it the last time and now I get an error when trying to install the alien made rpm on Fedora 11, I get this error: file /usr/share/icons/default.kde from install of testpkg-0.2-2.i386 conflicts with file from package kdelibs3-3.5.10-13.fc11.1.i586 Listing the content of the rpm file: $ rpm -qlp testpkg-0.2-2.i386.rpm / /usr /usr/games /usr/games/testpkg /usr/lib /usr/lib/libfmod-3.75.so /usr/share /usr/share/app-install /usr/share/app-install/icons /usr/share/app-install/icons/testpkg.png /usr/share/applications /usr/share/applications/testpkg.desktop /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/testpkg /usr/share/doc/testpkg/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/testpkg/copyright /usr/share/games /usr/share/games/testpkg /usr/share/games/testpkg/images /usr/share/games/testpkg/images/bb.dat /usr/share/games/testpkg/images/bb_bg.dat /usr/share/games/testpkg/images/bubblemad_8x8.png /usr/share/games/testpkg/images/goldfont.png /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl001.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl002.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl003.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl004.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl005.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl006.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/lvl/lvl007.txt /usr/share/games/testpkg/music /usr/share/games/testpkg/music/alfa.it /usr/share/games/testpkg/music/beta.it /usr/share/games/testpkg/sounds /usr/share/games/testpkg/sounds/bounce.wav /usr/share/games/testpkg/sounds/click.wav /usr/share/games/testpkg/sounds/warning.wav /usr/share/icons /usr/share/icons/default.kde /usr/share/icons/default.kde/16x16 /usr/share/icons/default.kde/16x16/apps /usr/share/icons/default.kde/16x16/apps/testpkg.png /usr/share/man /usr/share/man/man6 /usr/share/man/man6/testpkg.6.gz Am I wrong in putting the kde icons in /usr/share/icons/default.kde which seem to be a symbolic link ? It's a symbolic link on both Kubuntu 9.10 and Fedora 11 though. Sounds like a common situation that the same directory is needed for different packages, so why is it a conflict ?

  Read the article

• How to list rpm packages/subpackages sorted by total size

  - by smci

  Looking for an easy way to postprocess rpm -q output so it reports the total size of all subpackages matching a regexp, e.g. see the aspell* example below. (Short of scripting it with Python/PERL/awk, which is the next step) (Motivation: I'm trying to remove a few Gb of unnecessary packages from a CentOS install, so I'm trying to track down things that are a) large b) unnecessary and c) not dependencies of anything useful like gnome. Ultimately I want to pipe the ouput through sort -n to what the space hogs are, before doing rpm -e) My reporting command looks like [1]: cat unwanted | xargs rpm -q --qf '%9.{size} %{name}\n' > unwanted.size and here's just one example where I'd like to see rpm's total for all aspell* subpackages: root# rpm -q --qf '%9.{size} %{name}\n' `rpm -qa | grep aspell` 1040974 aspell 16417158 aspell-es 4862676 aspell-sv 4334067 aspell-en 23329116 aspell-fr 13075210 aspell-de 39342410 aspell-it 8655094 aspell-ca 62267635 aspell-cs 16714477 aspell-da 17579484 aspell-el 10625591 aspell-no 60719347 aspell-pl 12907088 aspell-pt 8007946 aspell-nl 9425163 aspell-cy Three extra nice-to-have things: list the dependencies/depending packages of each group (so I can figure out the uninstall order) Also, if you could group them by package group, that would be totally neat. Human-readable size units like 'M'/'G' (like ls -h does). Can be done with regexp and rounding on the size field. Footnote: I'm surprised up2date and yum don't add this sort of intelligence. Ideally you would want to see a tree of group-package-subpackage, with rolled-up sizes. Footnote 2: I see yum erase aspell* does actually produce this summary - but not in a query command. [1] where unwanted.txt is a textfile of unnecessary packages obtained by diffing the output of: yum list installed | sed -e 's/\..*//g' > installed.txt diff --suppress-common-lines centos4_minimal.txt installed.txt | grep '>' and centos4_minimal.txt came from the Google doc given by that helpful blogger.

  Read the article

• rpm -Uvh & yum install

  - by Nyxynyx

  I am new to linux and wants to understand the reason for using some commands. I am trying to install PostgreSQL on CentOs by following the instructions here. First we do rpm -ivh pgdg-centos91-9.1-4.noarch.rpm which installs the rpm package into the system. But why does it ask us to do yum install postgresql91-server (which i assume installs postgresql) again if we have used rpm -ivh to install the package? Additionally, what is the reason for adding the lines exclude=postgresql* into /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo under [base] and [updates]. Why is it that we exclude yum from accessing these packages, then use yum to install postgresql91-server?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >