Bug 353231

Summary:	conflict while updating to libraw1394_8-1.2.1-9_10.fc7
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Andrei Gaponenko <gandr>
Component:	libraw1394	Assignee:	Jarod Wilson <jarod>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	7
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-10-25 21:11:06 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 Andrei Gaponenko 2007-10-25 20:52:13 UTC

Description of problem:

Hello,

"yum update libraw1394" breaks with the error shown below


[root@0-11-d8-ea-8d-5b etc]# yum update libraw1394
Loading "kmdl" plugin
dries                     100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
primary.xml.gz            100% |=========================| 881 kB    00:02
dries     : ################################################## 3743/3743
atrpms                    100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
primary.xml.gz            100% |=========================| 202 kB    00:01
atrpms    : ################################################## 1011/1011
skype                     100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
primary.xml.gz            100% |=========================| 1.2 kB    00:00
skype     : ################################################## 1/1
updates                   100% |=========================| 2.3 kB    00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2        100% |=========================| 1.8 MB    00:00
freshrpms                 100% |=========================| 2.1 kB    00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2        100% |=========================|  91 kB    00:00
fedora                    100% |=========================| 2.1 kB    00:00
primary.sqlite.bz2        100% |=========================| 3.8 MB    00:04
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libraw1394.i386 0:1.2.1-10.fc7 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Dependencies Resolved

=============================================================================
 Package                 Arch       Version          Repository        Size
=============================================================================
Updating:
 libraw1394              i386       1.2.1-10.fc7     updates            43 k

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================
Install      0 Package(s)
Update       1 Package(s)
Remove       0 Package(s)

Total download size: 43 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
(1/1): libraw1394-1.2.1-1 100% |=========================|  43 kB    00:00
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test


Transaction Check Error:
  file /usr/lib/libraw1394.so.8.1.1 from install of libraw1394-1.2.1-10.fc7
conflicts with file from package libraw139                     4_8-1.2.1-9_10.fc7

Error Summary
-------------



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libraw1394_8-1.2.1-9_10.fc7

How reproducible: always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. run "yum update libraw1394"
2.
3.
  
Actual results: Error from the update process.


Expected results: new version of the package replaces an older one.


Additional info:

Comment 1 Jarod Wilson 2007-10-25 21:11:06 UTC

libraw1394_8-1.2.1-9_10.fc7 is NOT a package from any of the Fedora
repositories, its from one of the 3rd-party repositories you enabled. You can
run 'rpm -qif /usr/lib/libraw1394.so.8.1.1' or 'rpm -qi libraw1394_8', both of
which should tell you where that package came from. Fedora can't fix conflicts
with 3rd-party packages, particularly those that replaced Fedora packages.

Comment 2 Andrei Gaponenko 2007-10-25 21:20:47 UTC

Hi, Jarod-

I did not realize the older version was not from the Fedora repository.
You are right, I'll let ATrpms guys know.

Thanks for the prompt reply!
Andrei

Comment 3 Jarod Wilson 2007-10-25 21:32:53 UTC

If I'm remembering correctly, smart and apt handle this type of upgrade okay,
and some sort of shortcoming in yum's upgrade handling is partially to blame.
I'm also recalling that Axel is already aware of this, and tells ATrpms users to
use smart or apt instead of yum. Its mostly a non-issue, except for with the
scant few 3rd-party repos that package libs like ATrpms does... :\