Bug 110668

Summary: fetchmail from FC1 won't work with krb5-libs from RH9
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Göran Uddeborg <goeran>
Component: fetchmailAssignee: Miloslav Trmač <mitr>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-06-02 17:55:57 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Göran Uddeborg 2003-11-22 17:07:19 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703

Description of problem:
The fetchmail of FC1 will complain about relocation error when used
with krb5-libs from RH9 update.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fetchmail-6.2.0-7
(krb5-libs-1.2.7-14)

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Install RH9 with the upgrade krb5-libs-1.2.7-14
2.Install fetchmail-6.2.0-7 from FC1 with whatever RPM says it requires.
3.Run: fetchmail -V


Actual Results:  uebn> fetchmail -V
fetchmail: relocation error: fetchmail: undefined symbol:
GSS_C_NT_HOSTBASED_SERVICE


Expected Results:  uebn>> fetchmail -V
This is fetchmail release 6.2.0+IMAP-GSS+NTLM+SSL+INET6+NLS
...

Additional info:

I suppose fetchmail should have a "Requires: krb5-libs >= 1.3.1-6". 
(Or at least "krb5-libs > 1.2.7-14".)

Comment 1 Miloslav Trmač 2005-06-02 17:55:57 UTC
I'm sorry about the late reply.

Basically, "don't do that". rpm automatic dependencies only notice so much,
and determining the exact package version (which may depend on the
distribution you use) is not worth the effort.

If you need to import packages from different distributions, rebuild the
source RPM.  This should eliminate all similar issues.

Comment 2 Göran Uddeborg 2005-06-03 22:47:20 UTC
> rpm automatic dependencies only notice so much,
> and determining the exact package version ... is not worth the effort.

Of course.  But I thought that when I now had stumbled on this one, I could
report it so you could note it in the package.  To avoid that others were hit by
THAT particular issue.

It wouldn't have to be the exact minimum version.  It could be a conservative
approximation.  Like the version included in the same release.

It will never be perfect.  But why not do it as good as possible, when the
effort is minimal?