Bug 15780

Created attachment 6379 [details]
report.bug

starting installing packages
created transaction for installing on /mnt (remove=119, install=0, upgrade=2246)
Installation failed:
	harddrake-ui is needed by (installed) drakconf-12.52-1.mga4.noarch
	drakconf-icons = 12.52 is needed by (installed) drakconf-12.52-1.mga4.noarch

Looks like you're trying to update a 32bit install with a 64bit installer?

* installed sane-backends-1.0.24-3.mga4.i586 is conflicting because of unsatisfied libsane.so.1
* set_rejected: sane-backends-1.0.24-3.mga4.i586
(...)
* selected harddrake-ui-16.86-1.mga5.x86_64 is conflicting because of unsatisfied sane-backends
* promoting sane-backends-1.0.24-10.mga5.x86_64 because of conflict above
* no packages match sane-backends (it is either in skip.list or already rejected)
* no packages match sane-backends (it is either in skip.list or already rejected)
* installed harddrake-ui-16.26.12-1.mga4.x86_64 is conflicting because of unsatisfied sane-backend
* selected harddrake-ui-16.86-1.mga5.x86_64 is conflicting because of unsatisfied sane-backends

Created attachment 6385 [details]
Screenshot of uname -a

I don't think so

What's the result of:
rpm -qa |grep x86_64|wc -l
rpm -qa |grep i586|wc -l

Here it is:

[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qa |grep x86_64|wc -l
1
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qa |grep i586|wc -l
0
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qa |grep x86_64
lib64atlas3-x86_64-3.8.4-4.mga4
[root@localhost ~]#

uh? That's not possible.
You should have tons of packages

(In reply to Thierry Vignaud from comment #7)
> uh? That's not possible.
> You should have tons of packages

same in cauldron.

Seeing the arch works with "--last" though:

[marja@Mga5RC_EFI ~]$ rpm -qa | wc -l
3542
[marja@Mga5RC_EFI ~]$ rpm -qa --last | wc -l
3542
[marja@Mga5RC_EFI ~]$ rpm -qa --last | grep x86_64 | wc -l
2647
[marja@Mga5RC_EFI ~]$ rpm -qa --last | grep i586 | wc -l
0
[marja@Mga5RC_EFI ~]$ rpm -qa --last | grep noarch | wc -l
894
[marja@Mga5RC_EFI ~]$ 

But I seem to have one package that is neither x86_64, nor i586, nor noarch ;-)

@ lebarhon

Can you please try again, with

rpm -qa --last | grep x86_64 | wc -l
rpm -qa --last | grep 1586 | wc -l

CC: (none) => marja11

don't copy my "1586 "... it is, of course, "i586"

Created attachment 6389 [details]
screenshot of rpm commands

the --last option change the output

(In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #10)
> Created attachment 6389 [details]
> screenshot of rpm commands
> 
> the --last option change the output

So you have 145 i586 packages.

You can see them all with 
rpm -qa --last | grep i586

please replace them with their 64bit equivalents, first, before upgrading.

(Do we tell users to check for 32bits packages and replace those, before trying to upgrade their 64bit Mageia?)

Keywords: NEEDINFO => (none)

The issue is that you previously had the i586 version of sane-backends on a x86_64 installation.
As the DVD only contains x86_64, it failed to upgrade.

Had you added the whole online media, the upgrade would have succeeded.

The DVD cannot handle such case w/o adding online media.
There's nothing I can do here.

Keywords: (none) => NEEDINFO
Priority: release_blocker => Normal
Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Blocks: 14069 => (none)
Resolution: (none) => WONTFIX
Summary: Mageia 5 RC can't update Mageia 4 on a non-efi laptop => Mageia 5 RC can't update Mga4 b/c of packages installed as i586 instead of x86_64

This is worth a note in the Release Notes and/or Errata, because some packages pull i586 deps in x86_64 systems (not counting users who mistakingly install i586 packages because rpmdrake proposes both and they don't know which one to choose).

For example, i586 libs are necessary for playing Steam games.

CCing docteam.

Libs are not an issue.
Non libs packages are.

(In reply to Samuel VERSCHELDE from comment #13)
> This is worth a note in the Release Notes and/or Errata, because some
> packages pull i586 deps in x86_64 systems (not counting users who
> mistakingly install i586 packages because rpmdrake proposes both and they
> don't know which one to choose).
> 
> For example, i586 libs are necessary for playing Steam games.
> 
> CCing docteam.

already adjusted, the first line was already there and is now bold, the 2nd line was added:

It is recommended that the online repositories be set up during the upgrade as the DVD only includes a subset of the complete set of Mageia online repositories.
This is especially important if you use important 32bits packages in a otherwise 64bits install, because the 64bits iso will only contain the 64bits packages, so the upgrade is likely to fail if you do not add online repositories. 

Feel free to correct this, if needed

(In reply to Marja van Waes from comment #11)
> (In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 6389 [details]
> > screenshot of rpm commands
> > 
> > the --last option change the output
> 
> So you have 145 i586 packages.
> 
> You can see them all with 
> rpm -qa --last | grep i586
> 
> please replace them with their 64bit equivalents, first, before upgrading.
> 
> (Do we tell users to check for 32bits packages and replace those, before
> trying to upgrade their 64bit Mageia?)

I have only one i586 package that isn't a library: sane-backends
It doesn't exist a 64bit equivalent, so I uninstalled it and a new try for the installation is OK.

(In reply to Thierry Vignaud from comment #12)

> 
> Had you added the whole online media, the upgrade would have succeeded.
> 
> The DVD cannot handle such case w/o adding online media.
> There's nothing I can do here.

If you are referring to the installer suggestion to add extra media, shown here:
http://docteam.mageia.nl/en/installer/content/media_selection.html
I did add it.


IMHO to keep a friendly installer, it should detect bad arch packages and ask to uninstall/replace them instead of a general error message. May be a new feature for Mageia 6?

Created attachment 6390 [details]
report.bug compressed

I talked too fast, the problem is still there, half an hour later.
A window appears:
"136 installation transactions failed
Installation of packages failed:
(list of files and packages)"

(In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #17)
> (In reply to Thierry Vignaud from comment #12)
> 
> > 
> > Had you added the whole online media, the upgrade would have succeeded.
> > 
> > The DVD cannot handle such case w/o adding online media.
> > There's nothing I can do here.
> 
> If you are referring to the installer suggestion to add extra media, shown
> here:
> http://docteam.mageia.nl/en/installer/content/media_selection.html
> I did add it.
> 

*Online* media can be added in this screen:
http://docteam.mageia.nl/en/installer/content/add_supplemental_media.html

(In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #18)
> Created attachment 6390 [details]
> report.bug compressed
> 
> I talked too fast, the problem is still there, half an hour later.
> A window appears:
> "136 installation transactions failed
> Installation of packages failed:
> (list of files and packages)"


If it is the first lines that are most important (I don't know)
* 136 installation transactions failed
* file /usr/include/lzma.h from install of lib64lzma-devel-5.2.0-1.mga5.x86_64 conflicts with file from package liblzma-devel-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.i586
then many:
file /usr/include/lzma/*.h from install of lib64lzma-devel-5.2.0-1.mga5.x86_64 conflicts with file from package liblzma-devel-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.i586
then:
file /usr/share/info/libffi.info.xz from install of lib64ffi-devel-3.1-4.mga5.x86_64 conflicts with file from package libffi-devel-3.0.13-2.mga4.i586
and 2:
file /usr/include/pcre*h from install of lib64pcre-devel-8.36-2.mga5.x86_64 conflicts with file from package libpcre-devel-8.33-2.1.mga4.i586

the first line after that is:
lib64devmapper1.02 >= 1.02.90 is needed by lib64devmapper-event1.02-1.02.90-6.mga5.x86_64

(In reply to Thierry Vignaud from comment #14)
> Libs are not an issue.
> Non libs packages are.

I'm not sure we correctly understood this. lebarhon left all his i586 lib packages before upgrading for the second time, because that shouldn't be a problem. That was ok, wasn't it?

(In reply to Marja van Waes from comment #20)
> (In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 6390 [details]
> > report.bug compressed
> > 
> > I talked too fast, the problem is still there, half an hour later.
> > A window appears:
> > "136 installation transactions failed
> > Installation of packages failed:
> > (list of files and packages)"
> 
> 
> If it is the first lines that are most important (I don't know)
> * 136 installation transactions failed
<snip>
> and 2:
> file /usr/include/pcre*h from install of lib64pcre-devel-8.36-2.mga5.x86_64
> conflicts with file from package libpcre-devel-8.33-2.1.mga4.i586
> 
> the first line after that is:
> lib64devmapper1.02 >= 1.02.90 is needed by
> lib64devmapper-event1.02-1.02.90-6.mga5.x86_64

lib64devmapper1.02-1.02.90-6.mga5.x86_64.rpm was almost installed, but before that in the same transaction lib64pcre-devel-8.36-2.mga5.x86_64 was to be installed, which failed because of the above conflict

Created attachment 6394 [details]
report.bug compressed

I re-did the installation activating the online media. It took 2 hours to have at the end the same error message.
report.bug in comment 23

For your information, on another PC (my main desktop) I have:

[samageia@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep i586|wc -l
151
[samageia@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep x86_64|wc -l
2024
[samageia@localhost ~]$ 

The i586 packages, out of the libraries are:
vlc-plugin-theora-2.1.6-1.0.mga4.tainted.i586
wine32-1.6.1-2.mga4.i586                      
wine-gecko-2.21-3.mga4.i586

(In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #24)
> I re-did the installation activating the online media. It took 2 hours to
> have at the end the same error message.
> report.bug in comment 23

yeah, I can see you installed 32bits packages from
http://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/mageia/distrib/cauldron/i586/media/core/release/

but again 136 installation transactions failed :-(

Thierry will understand (I don't)

(In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #6)
> Here it is:
> 
> [root@localhost ~]# rpm -qa |grep x86_64|wc -l
> 1
> [root@localhost ~]# rpm -qa |grep i586|wc -l
> 0
> [root@localhost ~]# rpm -qa |grep x86_64
> lib64atlas3-x86_64-3.8.4-4.mga4
> [root@localhost ~]#

Hehe it all fooled us, but indeed "rpm -qa" does not print the arch of the package, the name stops at the release tag.

You should use something like:
rpm -qa --queryformat '%{name} %{ARCH}\n' | grep x86_64 | wc -l

rpm -qa --queryformat '%{name} %{ARCH}\n' | grep x86_64 | wc -l
or
rpm -qa --last|grep x86_64|wc -l

give the same result.

@ André

I think there are leftovers from your failed upgrade attempt

In your last attempt, I see e.g. both:
scheduling update of lib64lzma-devel-5.2.0-1.mga5.x86_64
scheduling update of liblzma-devel-5.2.0-1.mga5.i586

What does "rpm -qa | grep lzma" show?

oops
add "--last" to see the arch ;-)

The several upgrade attempts have broken Mageia 4, it doesn't boot any more.
In a console with Alt+Ctrl F2, I have

rpm -qa --last | grep lzma
lib64lzma-devel-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.x86_64
liblzma-devel-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.i586
liblzma5-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.i586
lib64lzma5-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.x86_64

(In reply to André DESMOTTES from comment #31)
> The several upgrade attempts have broken Mageia 4, it doesn't boot any more.
> In a console with Alt+Ctrl F2, I have
> 
> rpm -qa --last | grep lzma
> lib64lzma-devel-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.x86_64
> liblzma-devel-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.i586
> liblzma5-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.i586
> lib64lzma5-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.x86_64

That looks like you already had both arches when you started upgrading

I doubt we support having both arches of a package side by side. 

@ Akien
do we?

We do, that's why 64 bits libs are named lib64something.

(In reply to Samuel VERSCHELDE from comment #33)
> We do, that's why 64 bits libs are named lib64something.

thx :-)

@ lebarhon

I'm still not sure there weren't any other leftovers from your first install attempt that might have had a bad influence on your 2nd and 3rd attempt.

I suggest closing this bug again as wontfix for the original issue (install fails when upgrading with only the 64bit DVD and no online repos, when there are 32bit non-lib packages), and opening a separate bug if you hit this again when there are only 32bit lib packages, but no non-lib installed

(In reply to Samuel VERSCHELDE from comment #33)
> We do, that's why 64 bits libs are named lib64something.

Though it's not rare to have upgrade issues when you have both lib64foo-devel and libfoo-devel, since those packages contain conflicting files (e.g. /usr/include/foo.h). I don't really know how RPM handles that, it just "works" during installation, but I've had issues on updates from time to time, for which I had to uninstall libfoo-devel, update, and then reinstall libfoo-devel.

Instead of a wontfix, I'd suggest an enhancement request (maybe in another bug report), so that a warning is displayed before starting the upgrade.

(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #35)
> (In reply to Samuel VERSCHELDE from comment #33)
> > We do, that's why 64 bits libs are named lib64something.
> 
> Though it's not rare to have upgrade issues when you have both
> lib64foo-devel and libfoo-devel, since those packages contain conflicting
> files (e.g. /usr/include/foo.h). I don't really know how RPM handles that,
> it just "works" during installation, but I've had issues on updates from
> time to time, for which I had to uninstall libfoo-devel, update, and then
> reinstall libfoo-devel.

So the problems lebarhon got on his 2nd and 3rd attempt were not caused by leftovers from his first attempt.

I prefer to see it in a separate bug report, that will be much less confusing when coming back to it, later.

(In reply to Samuel VERSCHELDE from comment #36)
> Instead of a wontfix, I'd suggest an enhancement request (maybe in another
> bug report), so that a warning is displayed before starting the upgrade.

Yes, please in a separate bug report.

if packages have same contents (CRC, date, size), it's possible to install both.
But when you upgrade, if they don't end in the same packages, contents will differ between libfoo-devel-1 & lib64foo-devel-2...
That's unsupported

Status: REOPENED => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => WONTFIX

(In reply to Thierry Vignaud from comment #39)
> if packages have same contents (CRC, date, size), it's possible to install
> both.
> But when you upgrade, if they don't end in the same packages, contents will
> differ between libfoo-devel-1 & lib64foo-devel-2...
> That's unsupported

OK, so no separate bug report for that, but add it to our documentation

If I look at my other PC under Mageia 4 I have :

[samageia@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last | grep lzma
lib64lzma5-5.1.2-0.alpha.4.mga4.x86_64        lun. 03 nov. 2014 09:39:42 CET
python-lzma-0.5.3-2.mga3.x86_64               lun. 30 déc. 2013 14:57:08 CET
liblzma5-5.1.2-0.alpha.3.mga3.i586            lun. 16 sept. 2013 09:01:00 CEST
[samageia@localhost ~]$ 

[samageia@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep i586|wc -l
151

As a result, my both PCs can't be upgraded with Mageia 5. That means the problem is very common and a lot of people won't be able to upgrade. As the installer doesn't warn there is a problem and breaks the system, we must expect many complains.
My both PCs had a clean install of Mageia 3 and then an upgrade to Mageia 4.1.

This PC should update fine André, it's only -devel packages that might be problematic. And most users do not install development packages, unless they are already advanced enough to try to compile stuff themselves.

(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #42)
> This PC should update fine André, it's only -devel packages that might be
> problematic. And most users do not install development packages, unless they
> are already advanced enough to try to compile stuff themselves.

Provided online 32 bits sources are added, if the i586 packages include non-lib packages. Otherwise, IIUC, it can work but can fail too.

(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #42)
> This PC should update fine André, it's only -devel packages that might be
> problematic. And most users do not install development packages, unless they
> are already advanced enough to try to compile stuff themselves.

And even less people install both 32 & 64bit devel packages

I think I know where the devel packages come from. Probably because I needed RawTherapee 4.2 to translate its doc and Mageia 4 and 5 are shipped with RT 4.1, so I compiled RT 4.2 with difficulties despite the nice help of RT people. As many people complain for not having the last release of their beloved software, I fear they compiled them too. What I did anyone can. May be we could do a poll on MLO.
I don't have any idea where the 32bits software come from, I never voluntarily installed such soft.

FYI, I did a clean install of Mageia 3 followed by an update, and an upgrade by Mageia 4 + update + upgrade by Mageia 5 + update.

After Mageia 3:
[sam4@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep i586|wc -l
0
Installation of win64 and flash-plugin:
[sam4@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep i586|wc -l
72

After Mageia 4 upgrade
[sam4@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep i586|wc -l
62

After Mageia 5 upgrade
[sam4@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa --last|grep i586|wc -l
65

No problem, all fine installations.