View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0006693CentOS-6-OTHERpublic2013-10-02 18:39
Status assignedResolutionopen 
PlatformOSOS Version6.4
Product Version6.4 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0006693: Old .i686 packages in 6.4/os/x86_64/Packages causing yum update on 6.3 to fail with Error: Protected multilib versions
centos-6/6.4/os/x86_64/Packages contains mis-matched versions (new x86_64 but old i686). For example:
            gnome-settings-daemon-2.28.2-20.el6.i686.rpm 26-Jun-2012 07:56 562K
            gnome-settings-daemon-2.28.2-30.el6.x86_64.rpm 23-Feb-2013 17:40 612K

            control-center-filesystem-2.28.1-37.el6.i686.rpm 26-Jun-2012 07:54 50K
            control-center-filesystem-2.28.1-38.el6.x86_64.rpm 23-Feb-2013 17:40 50K

Meanwhile centos-6/6.4/os/i386/Packages does contain the required NEW i686 versions:
            gnome-settings-daemon-2.28.2-30.el6.i686.rpm 23-Feb-2013 17:52 611K
            control-center-filesystem-2.28.1-38.el6.i686.rpm 23-Feb-2013 17:51 50K

The x86_64 mismatch causes 'yum update' (to upgrade from CentOS 6.3 to 6.4) to fail with:

--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Protected multilib versions: 1:control-center-filesystem-2.28.1-38.el6.x86_64 != 1:control-center-filesystem-2.28.1-37.el6.i686
Error: Protected multilib versions: gnome-settings-daemon-2.28.2-30.el6.x86_64 != gnome-settings-daemon-2.28.2-20.el6.i686
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

The workaround was to download both the new i686 and new x86_64 RPMs manually and install them manually.
After the offending packages are upgraded, then 'yum update' runs without further error and successfully brings the system from 6.3 to 6.4.


TagsNo tags attached.




2013-10-02 17:56

manager   ~0018128

Do you actually need the 32-bit version of those packages? If not, removing them would be the best solution. They (32-bit) are not in the upstream's x86_64 repo. So, if you need them, manual download / install as you have done is the way to resolve the issue.


2013-10-02 18:39

reporter   ~0018130

My main reason for reporting it was to point out the inconsistency in the repos with the hope that I won't get hit with other cases when updating our many other systems in the future. I was hoping there was some sort of automatic consistency check & fix done on the repos.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2013-10-02 15:05 dwillic1 New Issue
2013-10-02 17:56 toracat Note Added: 0018128
2013-10-02 18:35 toracat Status new => assigned
2013-10-02 18:35 toracat Description Updated View Revisions
2013-10-02 18:39 dwillic1 Note Added: 0018130