Bug 612693

Summary: Add missing provides for compatibility to Fedora/EPEL packages
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>
Component: unicapAssignee: Kamil Dudka <kdudka>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Desktop QE <desktop-qa-list>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 6.0CC: ovasik, pkovar, tpelka
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Prior to this update, the unicap package did not provide the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk virtual packages. As a result, it was not possible to install packages that depended on the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk packages. This update fixes the declaration of provides so that the unicap package now provides the aforementioned virtual packages.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-08-24 15:10:09 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
specfile fix redhat: review+

Description Robert Scheck 2010-07-08 19:24:03 UTC
Upstream of "unicap" package splitted up their package into three libraries
already some time ago. Unfortunately Red Hat did not do that split-up as well
as Fedora and EPEL already did.

For compatibility reasons, the binary "unicap" package needs to provide:

Provides: libucil = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicap = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicapgtk = %{version}-%{release}

For compatibility reasons, the binary "unicap-devel" package needs to provide:

Provides: libucil-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicap-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicapgtk-devel = %{version}-%{release}

May you please add these provides very soon in order to avoid me adding a
nasty execption only for RHEL 6 to "ucview" - because EL-5 and F-11+ don't
have a single unicap package anymore...

Comment 2 Kamil Dudka 2010-07-08 19:41:43 UTC
Exactly that should be already done, fixed in unicap-0.9.5-4.el6.  Feel free to reopen if that's not the case.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 581187 ***

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2010-07-08 19:47:13 UTC
Is that package available somewhere? Because building EPEL packages still
fails: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2306074&name=root.log

Comment 5 Robert Scheck 2010-07-08 20:10:01 UTC
Haha. Found it!

$ rpm -qp --provides ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server/optional/ppc64/os/Packages/unicap-devel-0.9.5-4.el6.ppc64.rpm
warning: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server/optional/ppc64/os/Packages/unicap-devel-0.9.5-4.el6.ppc64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: NOKEY, key ID f21541eb
libucil-devel = unicap-0.9.5
libunicap-devel = unicap-0.9.5
libunicapgtk-devel = unicap-0.9.5
pkgconfig(libunicap) = 0.9.5
unicap-devel = 0.9.5-4.el6
unicap-devel(ppc-64) = 0.9.5-4.el6
$

May you please fix that? Please replace the wrong "%{name}-%{version}" by the
correct "%{version}-%{release}" - thank you :)

Comment 7 Kamil Dudka 2010-08-03 09:21:05 UTC
Robert, thanks for digging the bug!  I somehow overlooked the mistake when the change went in.  Unfortunately it's too late to get the fix into 6.0.  It will be reviewed by Red Hat Product Management for the next minor release.

Comment 9 Robert Scheck 2010-12-30 03:04:02 UTC
Kamil, what's the current status? Will that make it definately into RHEL 6.1?

Comment 10 Ondrej Vasik 2010-12-30 07:08:57 UTC
There are always limited resources for RHEL updates, so unfortunately we can't guarantee that at the moment. If you want to increase the chances, please contact product support - bugzilla is just bug tracking tool for RHEL bugs.

Comment 11 Robert Scheck 2010-12-30 12:37:51 UTC
Ondrej, please open your eyes, see and realize first, that this issue is really 
minor and the expected minor fix is going to break absolutely nothing.

Nevertheless I've cross-filed this issue as Service Request 394722.

Comment 12 Ondrej Vasik 2010-12-30 15:38:06 UTC
My eyes are fully opened (and from my(devel) point of view it is really minor change and easyfix without any risk) - but I can't change the system for RHEL updates - even the minor changes have to go through the update process... and therefore it is much harder to make such changes in already released RHEL.

I know this is not perfect and even the easy to fix and safe things have to wait for many months for update, but even the rebuild could sometimes cause troubles.

Comment 13 Suzanne Logcher 2011-02-15 21:39:56 UTC
This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.

Comment 15 Suzanne Logcher 2011-02-15 22:03:28 UTC
This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.

Comment 19 Kamil Dudka 2011-06-27 14:20:27 UTC
Created attachment 510105 [details]
specfile fix

Robert, please double-check.

Comment 20 Robert Scheck 2011-06-28 11:36:26 UTC
The suggested patch is correct.

Comment 22 Petr Kovar 2011-07-04 17:08:26 UTC
    Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    New Contents:
Prior to this update, the unicap package did not provide the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk virtual packages. As a result, it was not possible to install packages that depended on the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk packages. This update fixes the declaration of provides so that the unicap package now provides the aforementioned virtual packages.

Comment 25 errata-xmlrpc 2011-08-24 15:10:09 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1202.html