Bug 986198

Summary:	*_selinux man pages files are owned by two rpms (selinux-policy, selinux-policy-doc)
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Michal Trunecka <mtruneck>
Component:	selinux-policy	Assignee:	Miroslav Grepl <mgrepl>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Michal Trunecka <mtruneck>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.5	CC:	dwalsh, ebenes, mmalik
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	selinux-policy-3.7.19-212.el6	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-11-21 10:46:18 UTC	Type:	Bug
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:	960604

Description Michal Trunecka 2013-07-19 08:27:14 UTC

Description of problem:

$ rpm -qf /usr/share/man/man8/pam_console_selinux.8.gz
selinux-policy-3.7.19-208.el6.noarch
selinux-policy-doc-3.7.19-208.el6.noarch

Expected results:
Only one rpm owns the files

Comment 2 Michal Trunecka 2013-08-09 07:32:53 UTC

These man pages are still owned by both selinux-policy and selinux-policy-doc packages:

$ rpm -qf /usr/share/man/ru/man8/ftpd_selinux.8.gz
selinux-policy-3.7.19-211.el6.noarch
selinux-policy-doc-3.7.19-211.el6.noarch


/usr/share/man/ru/man8/ftpd_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/httpd_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/kerberos_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/named_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/nfs_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/rsync_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/samba_selinux.8.gz
/usr/share/man/ru/man8/ypbind_selinux.8.gz

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2013-11-21 10:46:18 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-2013-1598.html