yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

General support questions
rogerd
Posts: 3
Joined: 2021/12/07 12:19:46

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by rogerd » 2021/12/07 12:30:26

I've got this issue too, on multiple machines. I think it's the same issue but my messages are subtly different

Code: Select all

......
---> Package libsss_idmap.x86_64 0:1.16.4-21.el7 will be updated
---> Package libsss_idmap.x86_64 0:1.16.5-10.el7_9.11 will be an update
---> Package libsss_nss_idmap.x86_64 0:1.16.4-21.el7 will be updated
---> Package libsss_nss_idmap.x86_64 0:1.16.5-10.el7_9.11 will be an update
......
---> Package sssd-client.x86_64 0:1.16.4-21.el7 will be updated
---> Package sssd-client.x86_64 0:1.16.5-10.el7_9.10 will be an update
--> Processing Dependency: libsss_nss_idmap = 1.16.5-10.el7_9.10 for package: sssd-client-1.16.5-10.el7_9.10.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libsss_idmap = 1.16.5-10.el7_9.10 for package: sssd-client-1.16.5-10.el7_9.10.x86_64
......
--> Running transaction check
---> Package gnutls.x86_64 0:3.3.29-9.el7_6 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: trousers >= 0.3.11.2 for package: gnutls-3.3.29-9.el7_6.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libnettle.so.4()(64bit) for package: gnutls-3.3.29-9.el7_6.x86_64
--> Processing Dependency: libhogweed.so.2()(64bit) for package: gnutls-3.3.29-9.el7_6.x86_64
---> Package libsss_idmap.i686 0:1.16.5-10.el7_9.10 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libdl.so.2 for package: libsss_idmap-1.16.5-10.el7_9.10.i686
--> Processing Dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) for package: libsss_idmap-1.16.5-10.el7_9.10.i686
---> Package libsss_nss_idmap.i686 0:1.16.5-10.el7_9.10 will be installed
--> Running transaction check
......
Protected multilib versions: libsss_idmap-1.16.5-10.el7_9.10.i686 != libsss_idmap-1.16.5-10.el7_9.11.x86_64
Error: Protected multilib versions: libsss_nss_idmap-1.16.5-10.el7_9.10.i686 != libsss_nss_idmap-1.16.5-10.el7_9.11.x86_64
I've added a bit more information, I'm not sure if this helps. These are production machines so I'd rather not try anything without being sure it will work, so any help is greatly appreciated!

User avatar
Koala13
Posts: 1
Joined: 2021/12/07 15:34:40

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by Koala13 » 2021/12/07 15:38:23

We have exactly the same issue on all our CentOS 7 VMs where Gnome Desktop is installed. Interestingly enough, the problem is not observed on the systems without Gnome (I am not sure it is the only difference between the systems with the problem and the systems without the problem). In any case multiple systems are affected.

binaryflow
Posts: 7
Joined: 2014/09/26 13:55:20

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by binaryflow » 2021/12/07 15:47:31

Fixed! I commented baseurl= and uncommented mirrorlist= under the released updates section of /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo. Running yum update downloaded the problematic packages and ran without error. We are back to being up to date! Thank you for your help!

User avatar
TrevorH
Site Admin
Posts: 33202
Joined: 2009/09/24 10:40:56
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by TrevorH » 2021/12/07 16:49:29

Fixed! I commented baseurl= and uncommented mirrorlist= under the released updates section of /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
Which means your baseurl= line was pointing to an out of date mirror. Is that mirror maintained by you? If not then whoever does maintain it needs to fix it so it's up to date.
The future appears to be RHEL or Debian. I think I'm going Debian.
Info for USB installs on http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/InstallFromUSBkey
CentOS 5 and 6 are deadest, do not use them.
Use the FAQ Luke

User avatar
TrevorH
Site Admin
Posts: 33202
Joined: 2009/09/24 10:40:56
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by TrevorH » 2021/12/07 16:53:25

---> Package sssd-client.x86_64 0:1.16.5-10.el7_9.10 will be an update
So that's picking up an out of date copy of sssd-client which then depends on various other out of date packages and you end up with an error because some are one version and some are another. The root cause of all the problems I've seen in this thread so far seems to be out of date mirrors. If those mirrors are maintained by your own organisation then they need to go fix the problems. If they are external to you then you should switch to a different mmirror.

On my CentOS 7 VM, this is the output I see and yours should be the same, or at least similar.

Code: Select all

[root@centos7 ~]# yum list \*sssd\*
Loaded plugins: priorities
187 packages excluded due to repository priority protections
Installed Packages
python-sssdconfig.noarch                             1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd.x86_64                                          1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-ad.x86_64                                       1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-client.x86_64                                   1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-common.x86_64                                   1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-common-pac.x86_64                               1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-ipa.x86_64                                      1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-krb5.x86_64                                     1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-krb5-common.x86_64                              1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-ldap.x86_64                                     1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
sssd-proxy.x86_64                                    1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        @updates
Available Packages
ipsilon-infosssd.noarch                              1.0.0-13.el7_3                            base    
openlmi-scripts-sssd.noarch                          0.4.0-4.el7                               epel    
sssd-client.i686                                     1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-dbus.x86_64                                     1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-kcm.x86_64                                      1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-libwbclient.x86_64                              1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-libwbclient-devel.i686                          1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-libwbclient-devel.x86_64                        1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-polkit-rules.x86_64                             1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-tools.x86_64                                    1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates 
sssd-winbind-idmap.x86_64                            1.16.5-10.el7_9.11                        updates
All the sssd packages from base/updates repos should be the same version number: 1.16.5-10.el7_9.11. There should be none in that list ending in 9_10. Ignore the packages from EPEL as they are different.
The future appears to be RHEL or Debian. I think I'm going Debian.
Info for USB installs on http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/InstallFromUSBkey
CentOS 5 and 6 are deadest, do not use them.
Use the FAQ Luke

binaryflow
Posts: 7
Joined: 2014/09/26 13:55:20

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by binaryflow » 2021/12/07 16:54:52

TrevorH wrote:
2021/12/07 16:49:29
Fixed! I commented baseurl= and uncommented mirrorlist= under the released updates section of /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
Which means your baseurl= line was pointing to an out of date mirror. Is that mirror maintained by you? If not then whoever does maintain it needs to fix it so it's up to date.
I do not know who maintains this mirror, sorry.

Code: Select all

#baseurl=http://olcentgbl.trafficmanager.net/centos/$releasever/updates/$basearch/

User avatar
TrevorH
Site Admin
Posts: 33202
Joined: 2009/09/24 10:40:56
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by TrevorH » 2021/12/07 16:57:04

I do not know who maintains this mirror, sorry.
I don't either but it's out of date and has none of the 9_11 packages on it.
The future appears to be RHEL or Debian. I think I'm going Debian.
Info for USB installs on http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/InstallFromUSBkey
CentOS 5 and 6 are deadest, do not use them.
Use the FAQ Luke

subdriven
Posts: 1
Joined: 2021/12/07 17:28:40

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by subdriven » 2021/12/07 17:30:45

I too have this issue and have the following as the baseurl:

Code: Select all

baseurl=http://olcentgbl.trafficmanager.net/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/
This is an Azure-based CentOS box so I'm betting it has something to do with how they configured their image(s).

User avatar
TrevorH
Site Admin
Posts: 33202
Joined: 2009/09/24 10:40:56
Location: Brighton, UK

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by TrevorH » 2021/12/07 18:17:04

I have no idea whose mirror that is but it is the same one that someone else reported as being a problem. It is out of date. It doesn't show up on https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/ so it's not an official mirror.
The future appears to be RHEL or Debian. I think I'm going Debian.
Info for USB installs on http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/InstallFromUSBkey
CentOS 5 and 6 are deadest, do not use them.
Use the FAQ Luke

Whoever
Posts: 1357
Joined: 2013/09/06 03:12:10

Re: yum fails with Error: Protected multilib versions: package.i686 != package.x86_64

Post by Whoever » 2021/12/08 02:06:51

TrevorH wrote:
2021/12/07 18:17:04
I have no idea whose mirror that is but it is the same one that someone else reported as being a problem. It is out of date. It doesn't show up on https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/ so it's not an official mirror.
Microsoft owns the domain name, so I think one can assume that it is Microsoft's.

Post Reply