On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Polashek, Matthew wrote: > Excellent! Thanks! So the reason that the entire name of the RPM packaged > file is not contained in the RPM database is that the packaging information > is unimportant right? Right, there is no connection between the file name and the package name. The RPM database gets its information about the name of the package from a header inside the file. You could rename the file xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm to foobar.bazz and then "rpm -i foobar.bazz". The result would still be that the xmms-alsa RPM is installed. > > ---------- > > From: Matthew Saltzman > > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Polashek, Matthew wrote: > > > > > Anyone know why this happens? > > > > > > [root@localhost RPMs]# rpm -e xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm > > > error: package xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm is not installed > > > [root@localhost RPMs]# rpm -i xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm > > > warning: xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key > > > ID e42d547b > > > package xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr is already installed > > > [root@localhost RPMs]# > > > > > > When I run rpm -q xmms-alsa, the output indicates that xmms-alsa-1.2.8 > > is > > > installed. Why does this happen and how do I fix it? I can't seem to > > find > > > this particular problem anywhere in the ether. > > > > The answer is contained in the question. > > > > "rpm -q xmms-alsa" finds the RPM in the database, but > > "rpm -e xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm" does not. Do you see the > > difference? > > > > Hint: What happens if you try "rpm -e xmms-alsa"? > > > > Now, "rpm -i xmms-alsa-1.2.8-3.2.fr.i386.rpm" needs the name of the RPM > > *file* because the RPM isn't in the database before you install it, but > > "rpm -q xmms-alsa" and "rpm -e xmms-alsa" need the name of the RPM > > itself, because they are looking in the database for RPMs that are already > > there. -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
