On Tuesday 18 November 2003 05:33, Ian Mortimer wrote: > > Unless I'm reading "man rpm" incorrectly, does it seem there's a > > problem with the ntp rpm in the Fedora repository? > > You're reading the man page correctly but you're misinterpreting the > output of rpm -V. > > > 22:22:55 # rpm -V ntp > > S.5....T c /etc/ntp.conf > > ^^^^^^^^ This says that the rpm has the wrong size, MD5SUM, and > > Time no? > > No. It says the configuration file /etc/ntp.conf has a different > size, md5sum and timestamp from the default. That's normal for a > configuration file. OK. > > > If this verification string is indicating only a difference in > > /etc/ntp.conf, why didn't it get replaced by specifying > > "forceInstall=1" above? No indication during the install was given > > to indicate ntp.conf either was, or was not, being replaced. > > rpm has a complex set of rules for upgrading configuration files. > If the file has been customized and the new default is the same as > the old default the new file is not installed. Otherwise it get's > installed with a .rpmnew extension or it gets installed in place of > the current one which gets saved with a .rpmsave extension. Thanks Ian, I've seen this, but, I also see that in other instances there is a notification that either *.rpmnew or *.rpmsave has been created. In this instance, since neither was indicated, I was expecting that the old configuration file would have been replaced but, oh well ..... The reason this a concern is that a few of us who upgraded from RH9 have had problems with the NTP not erasing the old version and we ended up with two versions installed when the upgrade "scriptlet" indicates an error while installing NTP. I'll keep digging. Thanks, Mike Klinke
