Bug 705115

Summary:	rpm does not detect file conflict
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Orion Poplawski <orion>
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Panu Matilainen <pmatilai>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	6.0	CC:	ffesti, mvadkert
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	761352 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-12-06 18:18:26 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Orion Poplawski 2011-05-16 17:18:23 UTC

Description of problem:

This is on RHEL6, although the issue is demonstrated with 3rd party packages.

We have a custom noarch rpm (CoRA) that provides /usr/sbin/backup - a shell script.

If I install openafs from the ScientificLinux repos, which provides /usr/sbin/backup an elf binary, rpm doesn't complain:

# rpm -Uvh openafs-1.6.0-93.pre4.sl6.x86_64.rpm 
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:openafs                ########################################### [100%]

And it still thinks the CoRA package is okay.

# rpm -V CoRA
#

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.8.0-12.el6.x86_64

How reproducible:
Every time

I do get conflict messages on our Fedora machines and openafs from rpmfusion.

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2011-05-26 08:47:50 UTC

Your Fedora machines are i386 (well, any 32bit ix86), right?

This is easily reproducable on Fedora x86_64 too, it's an ages old flaw in how conflicts are calculated on multilib systems: file conflicts are resolved to prefer 64bit ELF files over 32bit (by default), but all (AFAICT) released versions of rpm prefer 64bit ELF over non-ELF files (such as scripts) too, which is wrong.

Fixed upstream now and also ACK for RHEL.

Comment 3 Orion Poplawski 2011-05-26 14:53:36 UTC

Yeah, I tested with i386 Fedora.

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2011-12-06 18:18:26 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1737.html