<html><body><p><font size="2">>> </font><font face="Calibri">I don't see any yum options which match rpm's '--force' option. </font><br><font size="2">Actually, you do not need to use --force option since efix RPMs have incremental efix number in rpm name.</font><br><br><font size="2">Efix package provides update RPMs to be installed on top of corresponding PTF GA version. When you install 5.0.4.1 efix9, if 5.0.4.1 is already installed on your system, "yum update" should work. </font><br><br><font size="2">Regards, The Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>If you feel that your question can benefit other users of Spectrum Scale (GPFS), then please post it to the public IBM developerWroks Forum at <a href="https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479">https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479</a>. <br><br>If your query concerns a potential software error in Spectrum Scale (GPFS) and you have an IBM software maintenance contract please contact 1-800-237-5511 in the United States or your local IBM Service Center in other countries. <br><br>The forum is informally monitored as time permits and should not be used for priority messages to the Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team.</font><br><br><img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABB0E63DFE13CD88f9e8a93df938690918c0AB@" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Jonathan Buzzard ---01/15/2020 02:09:33 PM---On 15/01/2020 18:30, Sanchez, Paul wrote: > Yum generall"><font size="2" color="#424282">Jonathan Buzzard ---01/15/2020 02:09:33 PM---On 15/01/2020 18:30, Sanchez, Paul wrote: > Yum generally only wants there to be single version of a</font><br><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">From: </font><font size="2">Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan.buzzard@strath.ac.uk></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">To: </font><font size="2">"gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Date: </font><font size="2">01/15/2020 02:09 PM</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Subject: </font><font size="2">[EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] How to install efix with yum ?</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Sent by: </font><font size="2">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</font><br><hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br><br><br><tt><font size="2">On 15/01/2020 18:30, Sanchez, Paul wrote:<br>> Yum generally only wants there to be single version of any package (it <br>> is trying to eliminate conflicting provides/depends so that all of the <br>> packaging requirements are satisfied). So this alien packaging practice <br>> of installing an efix version of a package over the top of the base <br>> version is not compatible with yum.<br><br>I would at this juncture note that IBM should be appending the efix <br>number to the RPM so that for example<br><br> gpfs.base-5.0.4-1 becomes gpfs.base-5.0.4-1efix9<br><br>which would firstly make the problem go away, and second would allow one <br>to know which version of GPFS you happen to have installed on a node <br>without doing some sort of voodoo.<br><br>> <br>> The real issue for draconian sysadmins like us (whose systems must use <br>> and obey yum) is that there are files (*liblum.so) which are provided by <br>> the non-efix RPMS, but are not owned by the packages according to the <br>> RPM database since they’re purposefully installed outside of RPM’s <br>> tracking mechanism.<br>><br><br>It worse than that because if you install the RPM directly yum/dnf then <br>start bitching about the RPM database being modified outside of <br>themselves and all sorts of useful information gets lost when you purge <br>the package installation history to make the error go away.<br><br>> We work around this by repackaging the three affected RPMS to include <br>> the orphaned files from the original RPMs (and eliminating the related <br>> but problematic checks from the RPMs’ scripts) so that our efix RPMs <br>> have been “un-efix-ified” and will install as expected when using ‘yum <br>> upgrade’. To my knowledge no one’s published a way to do this, so we <br>> all just have to figure this out and run rpmrebuild for ourselves.<br>><br><br>IBM should be hanging their heads in shame if the replacement RPM is <br>missing files.<br><br>JAB.<br><br>-- <br>Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420<br>HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.<br>University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG<br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"> <br><br></font></tt><br><br><BR>
</body></html>