The problem you are facing is that RPM cannot always glob filenames from wildcards. When you do rpm -i *.rpm from a command line, assuming you have the files pkg1.rpm, pkg2.rpm and pkg3.rpm in the current directory, rpm doesn't see the *.rpm, it sees:
rpm -i pkg1.rpm pkg2.rpm pkg3.rpm The shell expands it for you. Try doing this in the same environment: rpm -i \*.rpm, and rpm will report: error: cannot open file *.rpm: No such file or directory Same for FTP. If it ever worked, your remte FTP site had a ftp daemon that would interpret *.rpm and return all the rpm files. They may have changed config/daemons/something so it doens't work now. Either way, the best fix is to fix your postinstall and install the packages explicitly. You can do it all on the same commandline, but you need to explicitly each file to be installed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Hannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:42 AM Subject: RH 7.2 rpm install via ftp? > Greetings. We've been trying to update our RH 7.1 kickstart configuration > to work with RH 7.2. All of the standard stuff now seems to work fine, but > we're having some problems with the post-install section. In particular, > in that section we attempt to install some third-party software via a > command similar to: > > rpm -Uvh ftp://remote.ucdavis.edu/pub/3rdparty/*.rpm > > This fails without any error message. If we ask for a more-verbose output, > i.e., > > rpm -Uvvh ftp://remote.ucdavis.edu/pub/3rdparty/*.rpm > > we get the following messages: > > D: logging into remote.ucdavis.edu as ftp, pw (username) > D: found 0 source and 0 binary packages > > There are, in fact, two binary RPM files at that location. If we transfer > them first via FTP, we can install them "by hand" without any difficulty. > > It also seems that if we spell out the individual names of the packages, > then the remote installation works, as: > > rpm -Uvh ftp://remote.ucdavis.edu/pub/3rdparty/some-package.rpm > > Hence, this is not a burning issue, but it seems a bit cleaner not to have > to specify the full package names, i.e., including version number, as we > may upgrade to a new version during the lifetime of RH 7.2. > > We just reinstalled from our RH 7.1 kickstart diskette, and the packages > installed without problems, so far as we can tell. > > Does anybody know what's going on here? > > Thanks. > > - Mike > > ========== > Michael Hannon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dept. of Physics 530.752.4966 > University of California 530.752.4717 FAX > Davis, CA 95616-8677 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
