Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 1327238

Summary: rpm -V tomcat6 fails due on /var/log/tomcat6/catalina.out [rhel-6.9.0]
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Hung <hpham>
Component: tomcat6Assignee: Coty Sutherland <csutherl>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Jan Stefl <jstefl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 6.7CC: bressers, csutherl, fgoldefu, mbabacek, rhatlapa, rsawhill, salmy
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: ZStream
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Due to a bug in the tomcat6 spec file, the catalina.out file's md5sum, size, and mtime attributes were compared to the file's attributes at installation time. Because the values of these attributes change after the service is started, the "rpm -V" command previously failed. With this update, the attributes mentioned above are ignored in the RPM verification, and the catalina.out file now passes the verification check.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1327325 1357123 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-03-20 10:23:00 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:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1269194, 1327325, 1357123    
Attachments:
Description Flags
proposed patch none

Description Hung 2016-04-14 14:31:18 UTC
Description of problem:
When the command rpm -V tomcat6 is run, the verifies test is run on /var/log/tomcat6/catalina.out, its fails.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
tomcat6-6.0.24-94.el6_7.x86_64



How reproducible: Always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install tomcat6 on RHEL 6
2. Start the tomcat6 service
3. run #rpm -V tomcat6

Actual results:
S.5....T.    /var/log/tomcat6/catalina.out

Expected results:


Additional info:Catalina.out should pass verification or not be included

Comment 2 Coty Sutherland 2016-04-14 19:10:06 UTC
I think it's probably a good idea to ignore changes to the log file :) This is a very easy/simple fix using RPM's %verify directive (http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html) in the spec. The output format can be reviewed online (http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-verify-output.html); I'll remove the size, md5sum, and mtime checks and leave the user/group ones in place.

Comment 3 Coty Sutherland 2016-04-14 19:11:46 UTC
Created attachment 1147362 [details]
proposed patch

Comment 4 Coty Sutherland 2016-04-14 19:27:38 UTC
*** Bug 1327325 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 13 Tomas Hoger 2017-03-20 10:23:46 UTC
Previously fixed via RHSA-2016:2045, see bug 1357123.