Bug 448909

Summary:	file conflict between ia64/i386 versions of ruby-libs
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4	Reporter:	Alexander Todorov <atodorov>
Component:	ruby	Assignee:	Vít Ondruch <vondruch>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	QE Internationalization Bugs <qe-i18n-bugs>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	4.7
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	ia64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-06-20 16:19:00 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:

Comment 2 Alexander Todorov 2008-05-30 09:11:40 UTC

Bugs exhibiting this issue:
bug #448905, bug #448906, bug #448907, bug #448909, bug #448910, bug #448911

Comment 5 Alexander Todorov 2008-06-04 07:26:16 UTC

Akira,
in RHEL 5 version of ruby-libs the ext/ directory under docs is missing. I don't
know what are the contents of the conflict files. If they are not necessary I
assume it's safe to remove them (as in RHEL 5). See link in comment #1 for more
hints on multilib packages.

Comment 6 Akira TAGOH 2008-06-04 07:51:07 UTC

Uh, it is. however all of files under ext/dl may be removed then since some of
them are referring to dlconfig.rb. btw MultilibTricks doesn't help in this case,
because this file is generated at the build time according to the build host's
CPU architecture. can't have the kind of #ifdef. another idea is to rename the
filename like dlconfig.rb.ia64 to avoid the file conflict. which looks ugly a bit.

Comment 7 Akira TAGOH 2008-09-26 02:39:59 UTC

To make more clearer, do we still need to fix this issue in ruby package itself, but not rpm?

Comment 8 Alexander Todorov 2008-09-26 06:45:40 UTC

Akira,
although RPM was hacked to not report such type of file conflicts they are still conflicts and fixing the ruby-libs rpm package is the right thing to do.

Comment 9 Akira TAGOH 2008-10-19 08:15:44 UTC

Ok, then devel_ack'd.

Comment 10 RHEL Program Management 2008-10-31 16:45:42 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in
the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like
this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your
support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".

Comment 11 Jiri Pallich 2012-06-20 16:19:00 UTC

Thank you for submitting this issue for consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The release for which you requested us to review is now End of Life. 
Please See https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/

If you would like Red Hat to re-consider your feature request for an active release, please re-open the request via appropriate support channels and provide additional supporting details about the importance of this issue.