MySQL Bugs: #42953: Enterprise 5.0.66sp1 to 5.0.72sp1 upgrade fails on RHEL5

Bug #42953	Enterprise 5.0.66sp1 to 5.0.72sp1 upgrade fails on RHEL5
Submitted:	18 Feb 2009 2:18	Modified:	29 Jul 2009 20:39
Reporter:	Roel Van de Paar	Email Updates:
Status:	Duplicate	Impact on me:	None
Category:	MySQL Server: Installing	Severity:	S2 (Serious)
Version:	5.0.66sp1	OS:	Linux
Assigned to:	Assigned Account	CPU Architecture:	Any

Description:
o Upgrade from Enterprise 5.0.66sp1 to 5.0.72sp1 upgrade fails on RHEL5
o Notice the garbled error message 'vendor (MySQL A than Sun Microsystems, Inc.' in the error below.

How to repeat:
Upgrade Enterprise 5.0.66sp1 to 5.0.72sp1 on RHEL5

Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
1:MySQL-shared-enterprise########################################### [ 14%]
2:MySQL-client-enterprise########################################### [ 29%]
3:MySQL-shared-compat-ent########################################### [ 43%]
4:MySQL-devel-enterprise-########################################### [ 57%]
5:MySQL-enterprise-gpl-de########################################### [ 71%]
******************************************************************
A MySQL server package (MySQL-server-enterprise-gpl-5.0.66sp1-0.rhel5) is installed.
The current MySQL server package is provided by a different
vendor (MySQL A than Sun Microsystems, Inc.. Some files may be installed
to different locations, including log files and the service
startup script in /etc/init.d/.
A manual upgrade is required.
- Ensure that you have a complete, working backup of your data and my.cnf
files
- Shut down the MySQL server cleanly
- Remove the existing MySQL packages. Usually this command will
list the packages you should remove:
rpm -qa | grep -i '^mysql-'
You may choose to use 'rpm --nodeps -ev <package-name>' to remove
the package which contains the mysqlclient shared library. The
library will be reinstalled by the MySQL-shared-compat package.
- Install the new MySQL packages supplied by Sun Microsystems, Inc.
- Ensure that the MySQL server is started
- Run the 'mysql_upgrade' program
This is a brief description of the upgrade process. Important details
can be found in the MySQL manual, in the Upgrading section.
******************************************************************
error: %pre(MySQL-server-enterprise-gpl-5.0.72sp1-0.rhel5.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1
error: install: %pre scriptlet failed (2), skipping MySQL-server-enterprise-gpl-5.0.72sp1-0.rhel5
6:MySQL-test-enterprise-g########################################### [ 86%]

Thank you for the report.

Please explain what is the bug: corrupted letter in the MySQL AB or requirement in manual upgrade to 5.0.72 instead of just running rpm -U?

Regarding to the corrupted letter please also send output of `locale`

> Please explain what is the bug: corrupted letter in the MySQL AB or requirement in manual upgrade to 5.0.72 instead of just running rpm -U?

Both :) though obviously the manual upgrade requirement is more important.

> Regarding to the corrupted letter please also send output of `locale`

locale
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_TIME="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_NAME="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_ADDRESS="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_TELEPHONE="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_US.UTF-8"
LC_ALL=

Thank you for the feedback.

Failed rpm-U verified as described. RHEL4 affected as well. But I can not repeat garbled "MySQL AB".

Some more info:

o Exact command used for attempting to upgrade MySQL originally:

rpm -Uvh *.rpm after extracting the tarball and stopping the server

o The upgrade was from 5.0.66sp1-0.rhel5.x86_64 to 5.0.72sp1-0.rhel5.x86_64

See also Bug#45534.

Assigning this to Kent, too.

This seems to be the same issue as the one reported in bug#45534, which I am currently working on.

Therefore I grab this one, too.

Yes, I know this is the older one, but the other was brought to my attention, so I set this one to "duplicate", explicitly acknowledging that the priority of telling us about the problem would demand the reverse relationship.

My only excuse is that bug#45534 is referenced in support issues.