Thank you for the reminder. I’ve received that nasty surprise myself, but just 
long ago enough to have forgotten it. Would love to see that fixed.

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Skylar Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Another problem we've run into with automating GPFS installs/upgrades is
> that the gplbin (kernel module) packages have a post-install script that
> will unmount the filesystem *even if the package isn't for the running
> kernel*. We needed to write some custom reporting in our configuration
> management system to only install gplbin if GPFS was already stopped on the
> node.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:35:23PM +0000, Sanchez, Paul wrote:
>> This reminds me that there is one more thing which drives the convoluted 
>> process I described earlier???
>> 
>> Automation.  Deployment solutions which use yum to build new hosts are often 
>> the place where one notices the problem.  They would need to determine that 
>> they should install both the base-version and efix RPMS and in that order.  
>> IIRC, there were no RPM dependencies connecting the  efix RPMs to their 
>> base-version equivalents, so there was nothing to signal YUM that installing 
>> the efix requires that the base-version be installed first.
>> 
>> (Our particular case is worse than just this though, since we prohibit 
>> installing two versions/releases for the same (non-kernel) package name.  
>> But that???s not the case for everyone.)
>> 
>> -Paul
>> 
>> From: [email protected] 
>> <[email protected]> On Behalf Of IBM Spectrum Scale
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 16:00
>> To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] How to install efix with yum ?
>> 
>> 
>> This message was sent by an external party.
>> 
>> 
>>>> I don't see any yum options which match rpm's '--force' option.
>> Actually, you do not need to use --force option since efix RPMs have 
>> incremental efix number in rpm name.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Regards, The Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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 
>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> The forum is informally monitored as time permits and should not be used for 
>> priority messages to the Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team.
>> 
>> [Inactive hide details for Jonathan Buzzard ---01/15/2020 02:09:33 PM---On 
>> 15/01/2020 18:30, Sanchez, Paul wrote: > Yum generall]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
>> 
>> From: Jonathan Buzzard 
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> To: 
>> "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Date: 01/15/2020 02:09 PM
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] How to install efix with yum ?
>> Sent by: 
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 15/01/2020 18:30, Sanchez, Paul wrote:
>>> Yum generally only wants there to be single version of any package (it
>>> is trying to eliminate conflicting provides/depends so that all of the
>>> packaging requirements are satisfied).  So this alien packaging practice
>>> of installing an efix version of a package over the top of the base
>>> version is not compatible with yum.
>> 
>> I would at this juncture note that IBM should be appending the efix
>> number to the RPM so that for example
>> 
>>    gpfs.base-5.0.4-1 becomes gpfs.base-5.0.4-1efix9
>> 
>> which would firstly make the problem go away, and second would allow one
>> to know which version of GPFS you happen to have installed on a node
>> without doing some sort of voodoo.
>> 
>>> 
>>> The real issue for draconian sysadmins like us (whose systems must use
>>> and obey yum) is that there are files (*liblum.so) which are provided by
>>> the non-efix RPMS, but are not owned by the packages according to the
>>> RPM database since they???re purposefully installed outside of RPM???s
>>> tracking mechanism.
>>> 
>> 
>> It worse than that because if you install the RPM directly yum/dnf then
>> start bitching about the RPM database being modified outside of
>> themselves and all sorts of useful information gets lost when you purge
>> the package installation history to make the error go away.
>> 
>>> We work around this by repackaging the three affected RPMS to include
>>> the orphaned files from the original RPMs (and eliminating the related
>>> but problematic checks from the RPMs??? scripts) so that our efix RPMs
>>> have been ???un-efix-ified??? and will install as expected when using ???yum
>>> upgrade???.  To my knowledge no one???s published a way to do this, so we
>>> all just have to figure this out and run rpmrebuild for ourselves.
>>> 
>> 
>> IBM should be hanging their heads in shame if the replacement RPM is
>> missing files.
>> 
>> JAB.
>> 
>> --
>> Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
>> HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
>> University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG

--
____
|| \\UTGERS,     |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State  |         Ryan Novosielski - [email protected]
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ  | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'


_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

Reply via email to