RPM question (old linux version)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 04:02, Gene Smith wrote:
> Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp.com> wrote, On 
> 08/19/2004 08:45 PM:
> > gene smith wrote:
> > 
> >> I see that the tool RPMs are in a directory contain rh7.3 in its path, 
> >> i.e. ftp.rtems.com/pub/rtems/linux/redhat/7.3/i386/rpms/rtems-4.6/
> >> I think this just means that the rpm's were build with verion 7.3.
Right, they are supposed to be built with rh7.3.

> >> I have seen they work with fc2 version.
Yes, they should be usable on FC2.

> > I wouldn't expect them to install. The RPM version changed.
With rh7.3, RH switched from using rpm-3.x to rpm-4.0.x.
The packaging format (rpm-4) used by this rpm-version was incompatible
to that of rpm-3.x (rpm-3).

> >  I remember
> > that when we built RPMs on 6.x, they would run on 7.x, but I don't
> > remember about the other direction.
Neither do I - I had used SuSE at the time when RH-6.x was current.

> The 4.6.1 binutils/gcc/newlib/gdb rpm's definite install and run fine on 
> fc2 for me. But could not get them to install on old rh 6.1 due to 
> dependency error shown below.
> 
> > 
> > Ralf would know for sure, but building from the SRPMs would probably
> > work even with the older RPM version and would be best.
Yes, that's probably the option to consider if you really want to stay
with RH-6.1.

But, I would not do so - RH-6.1 is _way_ outdated. The hassle keeping it
alive is not worth it. I am not aware of anybody still supporting it.

ATM, there seems to be a consensus amongst add-on packagers that RH-7.3
is "oldest RH Linux version" worth being supported. At least, most major
3rd party packagers have discontinued support for RH < 7.3.

> I did not try the SRPM route on rh 6.1 since I figured it would have the 
> same depedency problem. However, build from source seems to to working 
> on the rh 6.1 which I left running at work before I came home.
Hmm, if building from source works, rebuilding the rpms from srpms also
should work. Feel free to ask, if you should encounter problems.

>  (The build of gcc/newlib seems to take forever!)
Yes, that's why binary packages exist ;)

> >> However, can I expect them to work
> >> with a really old version, e.g., rh 6.1?
Generally speaking: No, in exceptional cases may-be (cf. below)

> >> When I try to install I get a 
> >> dependency error:
> >>
> >> [root at 96J076 archive]# rpm -iv 
> >> rtems-4.6-rtems-base-gcc-gcc3.2.3newlib1.11.0-4.i386.rpm
> >> error: failed dependencies:
> >>         rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 is needed by 
> >> rtems-4.6-rtems-base-gcc-gcc3.2.3newlib1.11.0-4
> >>         rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 is needed by 
> >> rtems-4.6-rtems-base-gcc-gcc3.2.3newlib1.11.0-4

If these are the only errors you see and don't see warnings/errors
complaining about incompatible system libraries, then there could be
another work-around to your problem:

Try upgrading rpm to a more recent version of rpm, e.g. one of those
rh6.x packages to be found in ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/dist
[cf. http://www.rpm.org]

I'd recommend to trying rpm-4.0.3-5x first, because RH once had
recommended all users of discontinued RH-Linuxes < 8.0 to upgrading to
them. rpm-4.0.5 also probably also will be OK, but I would not try
rpm-4.1, because it is rather problematic in general. Later versions
definitely will not work.

CAUTION: Backup before installing these! Upgrading from rpm-3.x to
rpm-4.0.3 in most cases works smooth, but there have been reports that
it occasionally corrupts a system's rpm-database, which might leave rpm
in an unusable state afterwards.

Ralf