Bug 51624

Summary:	update of openldap-2.0.11-8 conflicts with pine
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4	Reporter:	Landon Curt Noll <redhat-mail>
Component:	up2date	Assignee:	Jay Turner <jturner>
Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME	QA Contact:	Jay Turner <jturner>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4.0	CC:	cturner, gafton, mihai.ibanescu, pjones, srevivo, taw
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Security
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-04-28 21:49:48 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 Landon Curt Noll 2001-08-13 09:20:55 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19-7.0.8 i686)

Description of problem:
One cannot install any of the openldap-2.0.11-8 updates if one has pine.
Pine appears to depend on a libiary that the openldap update removes

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.install pine-4.33-7.i386.rpm
2.attempt to update openldap-2.0.11-8 packges
3.
	

Actual Results:  error: failed dependencies:
	liblber.so.1   is needed by pine-4.33-7
	libldap.so.1   is needed by pine-4.33-7


Expected Results:  up2date would have bright over a pine update as well.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Mihai Ibanescu 2001-08-30 16:15:03 UTC

Updating openldap-2.0.11-8 should trigger a package install for
openldap12-1.2.12-3 (this is a Red Hat 7.0 box). The compatibility library is
not correctly found, and this seems to raise the problem.

Comment 2 Greg DeKoenigsberg 2002-04-28 15:56:59 UTC

Is this an RHN bug or a packaging bug?  And more to the point, if it's a
packaging bug -- which it seems to be -- then what is the proper mechanism for
closure of the bug?  Jay, can you help us with this policy question?

Comment 3 Landon Curt Noll 2002-04-28 21:49:43 UTC

My guess (and only a guess) is that this was a packaging bug.

Comment 4 Landon Curt Noll 2002-08-06 22:12:36 UTC

It looks like this bug has been fixed in RH7.2 and RH7.3.  
  
I am closing my bug with a resolution of WORKSFORME.