RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1128439 - Incorrect conflict with hylafax+
Summary: Incorrect conflict with hylafax+
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1129054
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: mgetty
Version: 7.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Michal Sekletar
QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-08-10 13:07 UTC by giulioo
Modified: 2014-08-12 07:59 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-08-12 07:59:58 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description giulioo 2014-08-10 13:07:18 UTC
Description of problem:
rpm appears to misdetect conflicts when the rpm name in "Conflicts:" contains a "-" char.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.11.1-16.el7.x86_64

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:

$ rpm -q mgetty
mgetty-1.1.36-26.el7.x86_64

$ rpm -q mgetty-sendfax
package mgetty-sendfax is not installed

$ rpm -q --provides mgetty
config(mgetty) = 1.1.36-26.el7
mgetty = 1.1.36-26.el7
mgetty(x86-64) = 1.1.36-26.el7

$ grep -i conflicts SPECS/hylafax+.spec
Conflicts:   mgetty-sendfax

$ rpm -qp --conflicts hylafax+-5.5.5-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
mgetty-sendfax

$ sudo rpm -Uvh hylafax+-5.5.5-2.el7.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        hylafax+ conflicts with (installed) mgetty-1.1.36-26.el7.x86_64

I don't understand this error: it says it conflicts with "mgetty", but it actually conflicts with "mgetty-sendfax" which is not installed.

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2014-08-12 05:54:40 UTC
I'm not able to reproduce with similar test-packages (would've been surprised if I could). Does the bogus conflict go away if you do 'rpm --rebuilddb'?

Comment 3 giulioo 2014-08-12 07:37:54 UTC
Yes, you are right, this is not a bug, sorry.

Since mgetty is a package included in RHEL7, while hylafax+ is not, I didn't think to do

   $ rpm --conflicts mgetty
   hylafax+

I'll file a bug with mgetty, since the conflicts should be in mgetty-sendfax, not in mgetty.

I tried closing this bug as not-a-bug myself but couldn't find a field in the bugzilla web interface to do it.

Comment 4 Panu Matilainen 2014-08-12 07:46:50 UTC
Ah, so there was a conflict in the other direction. Should've thought of that but I'm just back from vacation so brain not entirely functional yet :)

We can just as well reassign this bug to mgetty, just adjusting the bug summary to match.

Comment 5 Michal Sekletar 2014-08-12 07:59:58 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1129054 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.