Bug 2188550

Summary:	Explicitly provide /sbin/ldconfig, /usr/sbin/ldconfig
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jaroslav Mracek <jmracek>
Component:	glibc	Assignee:	Carlos O'Donell <codonell>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	38	CC:	aoliva, arjun, codonell, dj, fweimer, jlaw, mcermak, mcoufal, mfabian, pfrankli, sipoyare, skolosov
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	glibc-2.37.9000-7.fc39 glibc-2.37-4.fc38	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-04-30 01:32:04 UTC	Type:	---
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:	2180842

Description Jaroslav Mracek 2023-04-21 06:49:41 UTC

glibc provides and installs binary or binaries in `/sbin` (e.g. `/sbin/ldconfig`). In nowadays it is supposed to have binaries in `/usr/sbin/` (see Fedora 17 proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove).  

Why this is important?
1. dnf cannot find what provides binary, because it is not in standard location
$ dnf provides ldconfig

2. DNF5 as a replacement of DNF will not download filelists by default therefore there will be a problem with broken dependencies for several packages. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180842.

May I ask you to install binaries to `/usr/sbin/`, but for compatibility reasons please keep the original provide using `Provides: /sbin/ldconfig`



Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Florian Weimer 2023-04-21 09:57:05 UTC

I suppose we can add this:

Provides: /sbin/ldconfig
Provides: /usr/sbin/ldconfig

Such a change doesn't require us to fix bug 1063607, which has been open for so long that it is unreasonable to expect a fix anytime soon.

Would that meet your requirement?

Comment 2 Jaroslav Mracek 2023-04-24 11:20:19 UTC

(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #1)
> I suppose we can add this:
> 
> Provides: /sbin/ldconfig
> Provides: /usr/sbin/ldconfig
> 
> Such a change doesn't require us to fix bug 1063607, which has been open for
> so long that it is unreasonable to expect a fix anytime soon.
> 
> Would that meet your requirement?

The proposed solution will resolve our issue in bug 2180842 but does not resolve the issue from bug 1063607. 

Therefore from my side the solution meets our requirement and I will be happy to see it in Fedora. Thank you very much for your fast response.

Comment 3 Carlos O'Donell 2023-04-25 13:16:32 UTC

(In reply to Jaroslav Mracek from comment #2)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #1)
> > I suppose we can add this:
> > 
> > Provides: /sbin/ldconfig
> > Provides: /usr/sbin/ldconfig
> > 
> > Such a change doesn't require us to fix bug 1063607, which has been open for
> > so long that it is unreasonable to expect a fix anytime soon.
> > 
> > Would that meet your requirement?
> 
> The proposed solution will resolve our issue in bug 2180842 but does not
> resolve the issue from bug 1063607. 
> 
> Therefore from my side the solution meets our requirement and I will be
> happy to see it in Fedora. Thank you very much for your fast response.

Could you please test the new update and tell us if this fixes the issue?

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a4bcc99f09

Thank you!

Comment 4 Jaroslav Mracek 2023-04-28 11:10:48 UTC

It works like a charm in Fedora 39. May I ask you to back-port the solution to Fedora 38? In Fedora 38, DNF5 already replaced microdnf, therefore the issue is valid there.

Comment 5 Florian Weimer 2023-04-28 11:52:44 UTC

(In reply to Jaroslav Mracek from comment #4)
> It works like a charm in Fedora 39. May I ask you to back-port the solution
> to Fedora 38? In Fedora 38, DNF5 already replaced microdnf, therefore the
> issue is valid there.

We are going to bundle this with further updates in Fedora 38.

Do we need to backport this further? I think if we ever want to switch to DNF5 for mock and DNF5 cannot even install the bootstrap root, then we'll need a different approach. If the bootstrap roots are fine, I don't think we have to fix older branches/z-streams.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-04-28 18:14:28 UTC

FEDORA-2023-1e4a05f40b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1e4a05f40b

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-04-29 05:08:57 UTC

FEDORA-2023-1e4a05f40b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-1e4a05f40b`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1e4a05f40b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-04-30 01:32:04 UTC

FEDORA-2023-1e4a05f40b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Jaroslav Mracek 2023-05-03 09:45:20 UTC

I believe that Fedora 38+ is sufficient.