| Summary: | Can't update sssd, broken selinux-policy dependency | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Yann Droneaud <yann> |
| Component: | sssd | Assignee: | Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 16 | CC: | collura, jhrozek, s.binnie, sbose, sgallagh, ssorce, terje.rosten |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 389-ds-base-1.2.10-0.4.a4.fc16 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-10-25 03:38:17 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 748336 | ||
|
Description
Yann Droneaud
2011-10-23 08:45:34 UTC
And why is this change done? Does really sssd need selinux-policy at all? git has only - Add explicit requirement on selinux-policy version to address new SBUS symlinks. bugzilla # reference is? Or is it just that if selinux-policy (or selinux) is in use selinux-policy it must be >= 3.10.0-46. Fixing bugs in selinux-policy in sssd seems wrong. (I ask because I remove all selinux* rpms on my systems, however I need sssd, adding this explicit requirement makes it impossible to remove selinux-policy) (In reply to comment #1) > And why is this change done? > > Does really sssd need selinux-policy at all? > > git has only > > - Add explicit requirement on selinux-policy version to address new SBUS > symlinks. > > bugzilla # reference is? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747608 > Or is it just that if selinux-policy (or selinux) is in use selinux-policy it > must be >= 3.10.0-46. > The point is that SSSD 1.6.2 includes a change that *needs* the SELinux rules included in the Required: release, otherwise it won't even start. Otherwise users would run into bugs such as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746665 Ok, would then Conflicts: selinux-policy < 3.10.0-46 be better? Yes, the correct behaviour would be Conflicts: here. I'm rebuilding the packages this way now. Thanks for the bug report! 389-ds-base-1.2.10-0.4.a4.fc16, freeipa-2.1.3-4.fc16, selinux-policy-3.10.0-46.fc16, sssd-1.6.2-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14614 Package 389-ds-base-1.2.10-0.4.a4.fc16, freeipa-2.1.3-4.fc16, selinux-policy-3.10.0-46.fc16, sssd-1.6.2-4.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing 389-ds-base-1.2.10-0.4.a4.fc16 freeipa-2.1.3-4.fc16 selinux-policy-3.10.0-46.fc16 sssd-1.6.2-4.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14614 then log in and leave karma (feedback). *** Bug 748336 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 389-ds-base-1.2.10-0.4.a4.fc16, freeipa-2.1.3-4.fc16, selinux-policy-3.10.0-46.fc16, sssd-1.6.2-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. confirming that after a 'yum clean all' the 2 copies of the sssd-1.6.2-3 updates cleared out so the sssd-1.6.2-4.fc16 (x86_64) did show up and installed fine. |