Summary: | file conflict when installing usbguard on rhel-8.3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Alois Mahdal <amahdal> | |
Component: | usbguard | Assignee: | Zoltan Fridrich <zfridric> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Dalibor Pospíšil <dapospis> | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | Jan Fiala <jafiala> | |
Priority: | medium | |||
Version: | 8.3 | CC: | alakatos, dapospis, JONATHAN.SATTELBERGER, rsroka, vmojzis, zfridric | |
Target Milestone: | beta | Keywords: | AutoVerified, Triaged | |
Target Release: | --- | |||
Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
OS: | Unspecified | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | usbguard-1.0.0-3.el8 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: |
.The `usbguard-selinux` package is no longer dependent on `usbguard`
Previously, the `usbguard-selinux` package was dependent on the `usbguard` package. This, in combination with other dependencies of these packages, led to file conflicts when installing `usbguard`. As a consequence, this prevented the installation of `usbguard` on certain systems. With this version, `usbguard-selinux` no longer depends on `usbguard`, and as a result, `yum` can install `usbguard` correctly.
|
Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 1986785 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2022-05-10 13:36:46 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: | ||
Bug Depends On: | ||||
Bug Blocks: | 1986785 |
Description
Alois Mahdal
2021-05-21 21:17:41 UTC
The problem is that on rhel-8.3 there is an older version of selinux-policy package installed and this package is not a direct dependency of usbguard, but it is a dependency of usbguard-selinux. The new version of usbguard-selinux requires a newer version of selinux-policy. Usbguard-selinux is a weak dependency for usbguard. When you try to install usbguard (1.0.0 in this case) it tries to find the best fitting usbguard-selinux package which is in this case an old version (0.7.8) because of the old selinux-policy. But, usbguard-selinux 0.7.8 requires an old usbguard to function, therefore it also tries to install usbguard 0.7.8 which of course results in a file conflict, because it tries to install both usbguard 1.0.0 and usbguard 0.7.8. This does not happen on newer rhel version like 8.4 and 8.5 because the new selinux-policy is already present. I will see what I can do about this. The current workaround is to simply update selinux-policy before installing usbguard or just install usbguard-selinux which will install usbguard as a dependency: $ sudo dnf install selinux-policy usbguard $ sudo dnf install usbguard-selinux This seems to be caused by cyclic dependency between usbguard and usbguard-selinux. Please remove Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} from selinux sub-package and use Requires: (%{name}-selinux if selinux-policy-%{selinuxtype}) instead of Recommends: %{name}-selinux where possible (rich dependency syntax may not be supported on some older versions of RHEL). Also, %{release} contains {?dist}, which means that you are binding a "noarch" usbguard-selinux package to a specific architecture of usbguard. That is probably why yum tried to install i686 version of usbguard on an x86_64 system (or vice versa). Please disregard Comment 3. {?dist} doesn't contain architecture. The following will prevent one from downgrading or upgrading just usbguard-selinux and so getting an inconsistent state of usbguard vs usbguard-selinux Recommends: (%{name}-selinux if selinux-policy-%{selinuxtype}) Conflicts: (%{name}-selinux < %{version}-%{release}) Conflicts: (%{name}-selinux > %{version}-%{release}) Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (usbguard bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:1779 |