| Summary: | libevent2-devel conflicts with libevent-devel | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Petr Sklenar <psklenar> |
| Component: | libevent2 | Assignee: | Paul Wouters <pwouters> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | qe-baseos-daemons |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 6.8 | CC: | lkocman, mganisin, pwouters, steved, yoyang |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-04-01 02:12:34 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Petr Sklenar
2016-01-26 09:45:14 UTC
yes. they are conflicting because both devel packages cannot be installed at the same time. Why is that a bug? Quick check revealed that this package is available just in optional repo/channel (please correct me if I'm wrong). There's some special handling of conflicting packages in 'standard' repo in certain cases (however covered by release engineering & conflicting packages are not prohibited by any means). From distribution point of view this does not seem to violate anything. Hi folks, what's the expected behavior when it comes to installing libevent / libevent2 at the same host. Shouldn't libevent2 obsolete libevent? Shouldn't be a conflict ... and if so ... we need to put them into conflict groups in comps. Lubos libevent2 should not obsolete libevent. The choice was made not to cause potential problems in applications that would get switched from libevent1 to libevent2. Since they do have same named header files, these devek packages cannot be both installed. This is similar to openssl vs openssl099 or bind vs bind9xxx. That's why I think this is not a problem. (In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #6) > libevent2 should not obsolete libevent. The choice was made not to cause > potential problems in applications that would get switched from libevent1 to > libevent2. > > Since they do have same named header files, these devek packages cannot be > both installed. This is similar to openssl vs openssl099 or bind vs bind9xxx. > > That's why I think this is not a problem. +1 |