Bug 2000119
| Summary: | files /etc/pam.d/password-auth and /etc/pam.d/system-auth conflict when installing pam.i686 and pam.x86_64 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Component: | pam | Assignee: | Iker Pedrosa <ipedrosa> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | besser82, ipedrosa, tm |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-10-01 07:24:46 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: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
But installing pam-devel.i686 did work, although: Upgrading : pam-1.5.1-9.fc35.x86_64 2/9 warning: /etc/pam.d/password-auth created as /etc/pam.d/password-auth.rpmnew warning: /etc/pam.d/system-auth created as /etc/pam.d/system-auth.rpmnew That's pretty odd. This error is very strange indeed. As far as I know all Fedora images contain the pam package and it's very strange that you need to install it, if not, how would you authenticate? Can you check if pam is already installed before trying to install libpam? A simple "sudo dnf info pam" should be enough. Obviously I have PAM installed. I'm trying to cross-compile some software that needs the 32 bit (i686) library. I do not think it would be worth it to split the pam config files. The reason for the conflict is that two different NVRs of pam are being tried to install. I suppose if you do dnf update and only then try to install the i686 packages, it will work fine. Have you tried Tomas's suggestion? As this appears to be another general brokenness with multilib (that you have to update the x86-64 package first) I will mark this as working in rawhide. |
Description of problem: In order to get 32 bit /usr/lib/libpam.so.0 to run some software I need to install pam.i686 and pam.x86_64 together. However that does not work: $ sudo dnf install /usr/lib/libpam.so.0 Last metadata expiration check: 2:12:03 ago on Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:21:04 BST. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Architecture Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: pam i686 1.5.1-9.fc35 rawhide 562 k Upgrading: libeconf x86_64 0.4.0-2.fc35 rawhide 27 k Installing dependencies: libeconf i686 0.4.0-2.fc35 rawhide 29 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 2 Packages Upgrade 1 Package Total size: 618 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: [SKIPPED] libeconf-0.4.0-2.fc35.i686.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] pam-1.5.1-9.fc35.i686.rpm: Already downloaded [SKIPPED] libeconf-0.4.0-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'. Error: Transaction test error: file /etc/pam.d/password-auth from install of pam-1.5.1-9.fc35.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.5.1-5.fc35.x86_64 file /etc/pam.d/system-auth from install of pam-1.5.1-9.fc35.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.5.1-5.fc35.x86_64 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): pam-1.5.1-9.fc35 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. See steps above. I think you should consider moving the library to a separate package ("pam-libs") so that it's easier to manage multilib installs. I believe that even if we fixed the problems above, the binaries in /usr/sbin would probably conflict too.