[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-test-list
Subject:    FC2t3: error installing Sun j2re rpm on kickstart %post
From:       Pedro Morais <pmmm () rnl ! ist ! utl ! pt>
Date:       2004-05-03 17:53:17
Message-ID: 200405031853.17625.pmmm () rnl ! ist ! utl ! pt
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi!
First of all this is not a "jvm does not work" problem; it works just fine, 
after I manage to install it.

I've been checking my kickstarts against FC2 test 3; other than small changes, 
the only problem is that installing the j2re rpm on %post gives the following 
error:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Retrieving http://kickstart/redhat/fc2/extra/java/j2re.rpm
Preparing...                ##################################################
j2re                        ##################################################
error: unpacking of archive failed on file 
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_02/CHANGES;40967cf3: cpio: lsetfilecon failed - 
Inappropriate ioctl for device
---------------------------------------------------------------

j2re.rpm is a symlink on the webserver to j2re 1.4.2_02.
However, if I just give the rpm -Uvh command after the install is complete, 
using exactly the same http url, everything works fine (besides the 
file_contexts warnings).
The CHANGES file mentioned on the error message is the first file on the RPM.
Other RPMs are installed ok, so this is not a generic rpm-in-%post issue.

On  the rpm package changelog I found this:

---------------------------------------------------------------
* Qua Mar 10 2004 Jeff Johnson <jbj@jbj.org> 4.3-0.20

- add sparcv8 and enable elf32/elf64 Zon sparc64 (#117302).
- fix: --querybynumber looped.
- fix: ENOTSUP filter from lsetfilecon borkage.

...

 Sex Mar 05 2004 Jeff Johnson <jbj@redhat.com> 4.3-0.18

- selinux: ignore ENOTSUP return from lsetfilecon.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Could it be that that the 'rpm' binary in post is different (older) than the 
one that ends up installed?

And maybe this could be related to this bug?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120552

All SELinux-related stuff was left at the default values.
Worth putting in bugzilla?

	Pedro Morais


-- 
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: 
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]