Bug 223460

Summary:	ibmasm RPM package should not be installed by default, but only if user explicity selects it.
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5	Reporter:	Konrad Rzeszutek <konradr>
Component:	comps	Assignee:	Dennis Gregorovic <dgregor>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	5.0	CC:	amax, riek
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	5.0.0	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-01-25 21:35:33 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:

Description Konrad Rzeszutek 2007-01-19 15:35:42 UTC

Description of problem:

The 'ibmasm' package is used to facility communication between the IBM Advance
System Management PCI Adapter (also known as RSA I). The new products (RSA II)
also have a package that is downloadeable from IBM website, but they are not
backwards compatible. When users install the RSAII package they end up needing
to uninstall the ibmasm package.

Considering that the 'RSAI' was only supported on 32-bit boxes and the PIII ones
versus RSAII being on all new IBM boxes, the 'ibmasm' packaage should not be
selected by default when installing of the packages, but only install it when
the user explicitly selects it.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RHEL5

How reproducible:
Always

Comment 1 Konrad Rzeszutek 2007-01-19 15:38:05 UTC

The justification is that the users end up having to de-install the ibmasm
package. To make the experience of users easy, having the ibmasm package not
being installed by default would make folks happy.

Comment 5 Jay Turner 2007-01-23 19:25:46 UTC

Fix confirmed with 20070123.nightly:

      <packagereq type="optional">ibmasm</packagereq>

Will close once the change appears in an official build.

Comment 6 Konrad Rzeszutek 2007-01-23 19:54:27 UTC

Thanks everybody for quick turn-around on fixing this. Much appreciated!

Comment 7 Jay Turner 2007-01-25 21:35:33 UTC

Fix confirmed with 20070124.1.