Bug 73138

Summary:	gnome-libs should obsolete db1
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Jim Radford <radford>
Component:	gnome-libs	Assignee:	Havoc Pennington <hp>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	9	CC:	goeran, katzj, notting
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:	2006-02-21 18:49:32 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 Jim Radford 2002-08-31 02:09:03 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020820

Description of problem:
both db1-1.85-8 and gnome-libs-1.4.1.2.90-20 both contain

 /usr/bin/db1_dump185
 /usr/lib/libdb1.so.2
 /usr/lib/libdb1.a

Comment 1 Havoc Pennington 2002-09-04 18:51:22 UTC

The opinion around here seems to be that gnome-libs should not obsolete db1,
because then anyone with db1 installed would get gnome-libs when they upgrade.
but most likely they don't _need_ db1 as nothing is using it anymore.

Comment 2 Göran Uddeborg 2002-11-27 12:29:27 UTC

As things stand now, I see no clean way to upgrade:  I have a system with db1,
and a lot of old packages using libdb.so.2 from db1.

I can't upgrade one of those old packages, e.g. gnumeric, since it requires
gnome-libs >= 1.4.1.

I can't upgrade gnome-libs, since it conflicts with files from db1.  Adding all
the old packages in the same gigantic upgrade would not help, it would still
conflict with db1.

I can't remove db1 since all the old packages depend on it.

There is no way to start here!  But if gnome-libs did obsolete db1, as would be
logical, it provides what db1 provides, then everything would run fine.

It sounds to me that you are avoiding this in because of a limitation in the
upgrade logic.  When upgrading, the obsolete tag is apparently assumed to mean
more than it actually says.  But if so that is a problem with the upgrade logic,
and should be fixed there.

Comment 3 Havoc Pennington 2003-01-07 21:36:07 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 58942 ***

Comment 4 Red Hat Bugzilla 2006-02-21 18:49:32 UTC

Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated.