Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a machine running CentOS 5.5 I want to upgrade to the newest 5.x release. It's tripping over freetype.

Freetype has both an i386 and an x86_64 version installed. This is normal, but the x86_64 version is substantially newer (backported 2.4 to support a few other packages; I don't even have a 32-bit machine to build the i386 version on).

[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ yum list installed | grep freetype
freetype.i386                       2.2.1-28.el5_7.2                   installed
freetype.x86_64                     2.4.8-1                            installed
[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ yum list updates | grep freetype
freetype.i386                     2.2.1-31.el5_8.1              updates         
[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ sudo yum -y update freetype.i386 
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * base: mirrors.cicku.me
 * extras: mirrors.sonic.net
 * updates: centos.sonn.com
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package freetype.i386 0:2.2.1-31.el5_8.1 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Dependencies Resolved

====================================================================================================================================================================================
 Package                                   Arch                                  Version                                             Repository                                Size
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Updating:
 freetype                                  i386                                  2.2.1-31.el5_8.1                                    updates                                  312 k

Transaction Summary
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Install       0 Package(s)
Upgrade       1 Package(s)

Total size: 312 k
Downloading Packages:
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test


Transaction Check Error:
  package freetype-2.4.8-1.x86_64 (which is newer than freetype-2.2.1-31.el5_8.1.i386) is already installed

Error Summary
-------------

[sh-beta@localhost ~]$

On this test machine, I can manually downgrade the x86_64 package to the base CentOS 5.5 version and then upgrade both to the 5.8 version no problem.

[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ sudo yum -y downgrade freetype-2.2.1-28.el5_7.2.x86_64
<...snip...>
[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ yum list installed | grep freetype
freetype.i386                       2.2.1-28.el5_7.2                   installed
freetype.x86_64                     2.2.1-28.el5_7.2                   installed
[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ sudo yum update freetype-2.2.1-31.el5_8.1
<...snip...>
[sh-beta@localhost ~]$ yum list installed | grep freetype
freetype.i386                       2.2.1-31.el5_8.1                   installed
freetype.x86_64                     2.2.1-31.el5_8.1                   installed
[sh-beta@localhost ~]$

What's going on here? How can I fix it? Downgrading is a far last resort on my servers since I've got other packages that depend on 2.4.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

If you don't need the i386 vesrion of freetype then remove it:

  • rpm -e freetype.i386

If you need it, or other system packages depend on it, then do this instead: rebuild it for i386. This is pretty trivial if you still have the source RPM generated when you backported.

  • Install the EPEL repository
  • yum install mock
  • mock -r epel-5-i386 freetype-2.4.src.rpm
share|improve this answer
    
The i386 version is required by a lot of semi-stock packages. Building the i386 version via mock was very easy and it installed without drama. Why does this act differently than the minor upgrade? –  sh-beta Sep 26 '12 at 16:46
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.