Bug 1967330

Summary:	Make qemu-kvm use versioned obsoletes for qemu-kvm-ma and qemu-kvm-rhev
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Virtualization	Reporter:	Danilo de Paula <ddepaula>
Component:	qemu-kvm	Assignee:	Danilo de Paula <ddepaula>
qemu-kvm sub component:	General	QA Contact:	jingzhao <jinzhao>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	Docs Contact:
Severity:	unspecified
Priority:	unspecified	CC:	chayang, coli, jinzhao, juzhang, lijin, qzhang, virt-maint
Version:	8.4	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	8.5
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	qemu-kvm-6.0.0-22.module+el8.5.0+11695+95588379	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-11-16 07:53:43 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:

Description Danilo de Paula 2021-06-02 21:57:01 UTC

This bug was initially created as a copy of Bug #1967329

I am copying this bug because: 



Right now qemu-kvm defines the following in the spec file:

Obsoletes: qemu-kvm-ma
Obsoletes: qemu-kvm-rhev

However it generates a warning saying that using unversioned obsoletes is not recommended.


Those needs to be replaced by:

Obsoletes: qemu-kvm-ma <= {%epoch}:%{version}-{release}
Obsoletes: qemu-kvm-rhev <= {%epoch}:%{version}-{release}

This is a low hanging fruit that needs to be fixed eventually.
I created this BZ so we don't forget.

Comment 1 John Ferlan 2021-06-14 12:49:51 UTC

Assigned to Jeff for initial triage per bz process and age of bug created or assigned to virt-maint without triage.

Comment 2 Jeff Nelson 2021-06-15 22:40:17 UTC

Assigned to Danilo for delegation to a maintainer.

Comment 3 Danilo de Paula 2021-06-29 16:59:32 UTC

QA-ACK, please?

Comment 8 Yanan Fu 2021-07-08 15:59:01 UTC

QE bot(pre verify): Set 'Verified:Tested,SanityOnly' as gating/tier1 test pass.

Comment 10 Danilo de Paula 2021-07-15 13:32:21 UTC

That's odd to test, right?

Honestly I don't think it can be verified outside of the build process. So checking the spec file for that information sounds enough.
In that case, yes, that's expected.

Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2021-11-16 07:53:43 UTC

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 (virt:av 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-2021:4684