Bug 621864

Summary: MTA file conflicts found in F14-Alpha-RC1-i386-DVD
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: He Rui <rhe>
Component: distributionAssignee: Bill Nottingham <notting>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Bill Nottingham <notting>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 14CC: dcantrell, fdc, jlaska, mlichvar, robatino, rvokal
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-08-10 20:12:13 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 611990    
Description Flags
test case code fix none

Description He Rui 2010-08-06 10:32:07 UTC
Description of problem:

== File conflicts, listed by conflicting packages ==


Comment 1 Miroslav Lichvar 2010-08-06 10:48:14 UTC
Hm, these are ghost files managed by alternatives, following guidelines:


Are the conflicts reported by rpm?

Comment 2 James Laska 2010-08-06 15:08:40 UTC
Miroslav: no, these are conflicts discovered while testing Fedora Alpha.  These file conflicts exist on the Fedora Alpha DVD and can be discovered by running the test case https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts

Is it possible our test case doesn't account for %ghost files properly?  Are these packages able to be installed at the same time?

Comment 3 François Cami 2010-08-06 22:56:04 UTC
I'm able to reproduce this on F14 Alpha RC1 x86_64, but not on F13 GA x86_64.

Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2010-08-08 12:53:17 UTC
Why/are we really shipping 4 MTAs on media?

Comment 5 François Cami 2010-08-08 18:20:17 UTC
> Are these packages able to be installed at the same time?

On my F14 test VM, the answer is yes.

# rpm -q sendmail postfix exim ssmtp

Please note that I haven't tried selecting them at install time yet.

Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team

Comment 6 François Cami 2010-08-09 16:37:08 UTC
(courtesy of skvidal)
as far as rpm is concerned, if any of two conflicting files is a ghost, they are both identical. Relevant code snippet:

int rpmfiCompare(const rpmfi afi, const rpmfi bfi)
  rpmFileTypes awhat = rpmfiWhatis(rpmfiFMode(afi));
  rpmFileTypes bwhat = rpmfiWhatis(rpmfiFMode(bfi));
  if ((rpmfiFFlags(afi) & RPMFILE_GHOST) ||
  (rpmfiFFlags(bfi) & RPMFILE_GHOST)) return 0;

So the test case code seems wrong. Attaching a patch (again courtesy of skvidal) to fix it.

Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team

Comment 7 François Cami 2010-08-09 16:38:37 UTC
Created attachment 437648 [details]
test case code fix

Comment 8 Bill Nottingham 2010-08-09 17:26:10 UTC
WRT comment #4, I believe that's a pungi artifact of pulling all providers of a particular dep.

Comment 9 He Rui 2010-08-10 11:57:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created an attachment (id=437648) [details]
> test case code fix    

The conflicts wasn't shown by using this code fix, so this is the test case script problem?

Comment 10 Bill Nottingham 2010-08-10 14:07:55 UTC
He, yes. The issue is that the test case is showing false positives.

Comment 11 James Laska 2010-08-10 20:12:13 UTC
Patch to correct the test case but out for review [1].  I expect this change will be accepted and made available shortly.  Closing this issue out as NOTABUG (which of course isn't entirely accurate).  Please file a ticket against autoqa [2] should this problem remain after the patch has been accepted.

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-August/000997.html
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa