[ATrpms-users] SOLVED Re: FC3 Myth 0.20 Repodata

[Ryan Pisani]

>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:41:17AM -0500, Ryan Pisani wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:19:01AM -0500, Ryan Pisani wrote:
>>>> >> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 09:06:21PM -0500, Ryan Pisani wrote:
>>>> >> >> Axel & Crew --
>>>> >> >> Forgive me if someone has already hit the list up, I've just
>>>> joined
>>>> >> this
>>>> >> >> evening. Anyhow, I've noticed that for some days now the 0.20
>>>> mythtv
>>>> >> >> rpms
>>>> >> >> have been in FC3, FC4, & FC5 repositories (dl.atrpms.net).
>>>> However,
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> >> seems that the repodata is not up to date for the FC3
>>>> repository.
>>>> The
>>>> >> >> 0.20
>>>> >> >> rpms are in the stable tree, and I confirmed that by the select
>>>> few
>>>> >> >> listed
>>>> >> >> on the atrpms.net mainpage. However, I'm unable to retrieve them
>>>> with
>>>> >> >> either apt or yum clients. Is this intentional, is there some
>>>> other
>>>> >> >> issue
>>>> >> >> I'm not aware of?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > No, they should be there. What does apt-cache policy mythtv say?
>>>> After
>>>> >> > apt-get update, of course?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Here you go: Seems to still be picking up 0.19.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hm, what does dl.atrpms.net resolve to? There was a switch some
>>>> weeks
>>>> > ago, if the name server you use is broken maybe you're still looking
>>>> > at the old server.
>>>> >
>>>> >> [root at frouse2 ~]# apt-get update && apt-cache policy mythtv
>>>> >> [...]
>>>> >> Get:6 http://dl.atrpms.net fc3-i386/atrpms/stable repomd.xml [951B]
>>>> >
>>>> >> mythtv:
>>>> >>   Installed: 0.19-130.fc3.at
>>>> >>   Candidate: 0.19-130.fc3.at
>>>> >>   Version Table:
>>>> >>  *** 0.19-130.fc3.at 0
>>>> >>         500 http://dl.atrpms.net fc3-i386/atrpms/stable pkglist
>>>> >>         500 http://dl.atrpms.net fc3-i386/atrpms/stable/ repomd
>>>> >>         100 RPM Database
>>>> >
>>>> > Also looks like you have double entries.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The dl.atrpms.net that I see is pointing to 130.133.35.11.
>>>
>>> That's correct.
>>>
>>>> I can navigate the repository via browser and see the 0.20 rpms.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>> But my apt-get doesn't see to pick them up. I looked at
>>>> primary.xml.gz and it looks like 0.20 isn't there either.
>>>
>>> But they are ...
>>> Hm. The file should start with
>>>
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>> <metadata xmlns="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/common"
>>> xmlns:rpm="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/rpm" packages="939">
>>>
>>> If not, maybe you are behind a (transparent) caching proxy?
>>> --
>>> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well. I think your first assumption about dns resolution was correct. I
>> seem to have multiple returns. I got the .11 address the first time, now
>> I
>> just did another yum clean, etc, etc and went to get the repo data
>> again.
>> This time I decided to just rip another nslookup on the dl.atrpms.net.
>> Now
>> I got the 130.133.35.8 server.  I've queried all 3 in line DNS servers
>> from my provider and all are replying with .8 now. WTF. But i think this
>> explains it. I'll work on getting another server to query for lookups.
>> Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. It must be coincidental
>> that I managed to get to the repo via http more than once.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ryan
>>
>
>
> Just to add more to this. I am consistently getting .8 resolved now and I
> can simulataneously navigate to the dl.atrpms.net fc3 repo and see the
> 0.20 rpms there.
>
> I'm starting to lean towards the fact that earthlink has a caching
> mechanism somewhere. Now i see the primary.xml.gz that is downloading has
> a date stamp of Sep 3, which doesn't match the web. I'm going to see if I
> can pull down the proper one manually and then use the cache data to
> update. I'm really not up to sitting on the phone with a bunch of crappy
> tech folks at earthlink..... they'll be telling me to re-install
> "windows"....  Ah hell.
>


Well. After further investigation I found that it was indeed my fault.
Apparently my instance of nscd is not updating as it should. The nslookup
was sucessful because I queried the dns server directly, however a getent
hosts dl.atrpms.net showed some old IP address. Thanks Axel for getting me
on track.. now i need to look at my nscd and find out what's wrong.

Ryan