Topic: error when updating openssl

[davidS]

hello
i get this error when trying to run yum update  to openssl
"Transaction Check Error:
  file /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt from install of openssl-0.9.8e-27.1.el5.sme.x86_64 conflicts with file from package openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1.i686
  file /usr/share/man/man1/ca.1ssl.gz from install of openssl-0.9.8e-27.1.el5.sme.x86_64 conflicts with file from package openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1.i686
  file /usr/share/man/man1/ecparam.1ssl.gz from install of openssl-0.9.8e-27.1.el5.sme.x86_64 conflicts with file from package openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1.i686
  file /usr/share/man/man1/req.1ssl.gz from install of openssl-0.9.8e-27.1.el5.sme.x86_64 conflicts with file from package openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1.i686
  file /usr/share/man/man1/x509.1ssl.gz from install of openssl-0.9.8e-27.1.el5.sme.x86_64 conflicts with file from package openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1.i686
"

[idp_qbn]

Hi sibony88,

Is your SME server a 64-bit or 32-bit machine?
At first glance, and with no more information to go on, it looks like you are updating 32-bit software with 64-bit software. You can't mix and match - it has to be all 32-bit or all 64-bit.

Hope I have not steered you down the wrong path.
Cheers
Ian

[davidS]

hi and thank you
my server is 64bit

[janet]

sibony88

Exactly what command are you issuing that causes those error messages ?

The ca-bundle.crt bundle was included in recent upgrade.
It looks like you have openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1.i686 installed (a 32 bit rpm) on your 64 bit system

Check with
rpm -q openssl

You should report a bug.

If so, you could try
rpm -e --nodeps openssl

and then
yum install openssl

Before doing the rpm -e command (so that log history & configuration does not change or be lost), you should report a bug.

[davidS]

thank you janet
how do i reprt a bug ?
i check with 
rpm -q openssl
# rpm -q openssl
openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1
openssl-0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1

when i tried to run the command rpm -e --nodeps openssl i receive an error: "openssl" specifies multiple packages

[janet]

sibony88

Please quote the full rpm names including .686 or 64 at the end.

Use the full name also for the rpm -e command.
It sounds like you need to remove the .686 version

Possibly an update was interrupted allowing 2 "same"  pkgs to show being installed.

Bugzilla link is at top of Forum, create new account with valid email address

[wellsi]

This has been raised as Bug 8246 http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8246

It does look like people have a 32bit openssl on their 64bit systems which is causing problems now.

[warren]

sibony88

Please quote the full rpm names including .686 or 64 at the end.

run  following  :

Code: [Select]

# rpm -qa --qf "%{n}-%{v}-%{r}.%{arch}\n"  | grep 'openssl'
will show the  architecture type

[bugzilla]

hi and thank you
my server is 64bit

I've found that i386 packages creep in when im copy/pasting snippets of code i use to setup servers, but i'm not watching carefully enough;
# yum install openssl-devel
--> Running transaction check
---> Package openssl-devel.i386 0:0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1 set to be updated

# Oh dear - forgot to specify x86_64, so this would pollute the system with i386 packages.
# yum install openssl-devel.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package openssl-devel.x86_64 0:0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1 set to be updated

# Yay! - correct package selected.

D.

[Stefano]

I've found that i386 packages creep in when im copy/pasting snippets of code i use to setup servers, but i'm not watching carefully enough;
# yum install openssl-devel
--> Running transaction check
---> Package openssl-devel.i386 0:0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1 set to be updated

# Oh dear - forgot to specify x86_64, so this would pollute the system with i386 packages.
# yum install openssl-devel.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package openssl-devel.x86_64 0:0.9.8e-27.el5_10.1 set to be updated

# Yay! - correct package selected.

D.

this should not happen if your server is 64bit..

please raise a bug in bugzilla, thank you

[wellsi]

If openssl-devel-0.9.8e-27.1 is needed (it's not needed by core so something/someone added it to the server) then enable smedev repo

yum --enablerepo=smedev update

[bugzilla]

this should not happen if your server is 64bit..

please raise a bug in bugzilla, thank you

Bug reported: http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8261

[guest22]

just as a note, to be on the 'safe side' I always perform a yum update on a 64bit arch like:

yum update --exclude=*86

[Xavier.A]

@sibony88 and @ALL
 

just as a note, to be on the 'safe side' I always perform a yum update on a 64bit arch like:

yum update --exclude=*86

U should try something like this :

Code: [Select]

man yum.conf
links 'https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=yum.conf+multilib_policy%3Dbest&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#q=bug+yum.conf+multilib_policy+'

and after :

Code: [Select]

mkdir -p /etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/yum.conf
cat >> /etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/yum.conf/10main_MultilibPolicy << EOF
multilib_policy=best
EOF
expand-template /etc/yum.conf
cat /etc/yum.conf
yum update
and then u will be able to update with the good arch. (x64) for a 64bits server whithout excluding all useful 32 bits packages


That's all !

[guest22]

Would this be something to raise a bug for so it can be incorporated into SME Server?

[wellsi]

Would this be something to raise a bug for so it can be incorporated into SME Server?

Yes Bug 8261, and I think Bug 8246 is the same problem

[CharlieBrady]

At first glance, and with no more information to go on, it looks like you are updating 32-bit software with 64-bit software. You can't mix and match - it has to be all 32-bit or all 64-bit.

No, that's not true. 64-bit systems usually have some 32bit libraries installed:

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/009jul05/features/multilib/

The problem here is that the system has two openssl rpms installed, and can't update both of them at the same time, as there are conflicts with overlapping files from the mismatched rpms. The solution is to fix the standard repositories so that both arch openssl rpms can be upgraded simultaneously.