Bug 62751

Summary:	%files list error
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Peter Bowen <pzbowen+rhbeta>
Component:	mozilla	Assignee:	Christopher Aillon <caillon>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Ben Levenson <benl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	9
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-04-25 07:45:05 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:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	62759

Description Peter Bowen 2002-04-05 05:32:59 UTC

These file(s) are incorrectly owned by two subpackages:

/usr/lib/mozilla/defaults/pref/inspector.js (one of ['mozilla-35:0.9.9-5',
'mozilla-dom-inspector-35:0.9.9-5'] should own it) from mozilla-0.9.9-5.src.rpm

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2002-04-09 05:11:07 UTC

Part of same source package, so it shouldn't cause problems. Should probably go
in the dom-inspector package, though.

Comment 2 Peter Bowen 2002-04-09 13:27:44 UTC

While it isn't a problem for anaconda, as it uses the replace files flags on the
RPM transaction, it is a problem is the packages are installed via up2date or
manually via rpm.  Up2date will simply bring up an error message stating that
the packages you requested cannot be installed due to file conflicts.

Comment 3 Peter Bowen 2002-08-09 03:02:28 UTC

this bug _still_ exists in Milan

Comment 4 Christopher Blizzard 2002-08-09 15:02:37 UTC

It's probably upstream, that's why.

Comment 5 Peter Bowen 2002-08-15 12:53:30 UTC

Who is the upstream maintainer for this?  I don't mind re-filing this and Bug
#71127 upstream at mozilla.org, but I can't find an appropriate
Product/Component in bugzilla.mozilla.org to file them.

Comment 6 Peter Bowen 2003-02-09 20:27:18 UTC

Sorry to be a pain but this bug is still in GinGin re0204.  While it isn't a big
deal it is still anonying.