Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
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 1332990

Summary: rpm failing to detect a conflict
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Peter Rajnoha <prajnoha>
Component: rpmAssignee: Florian Festi <ffesti>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.3CC: agk, lkardos
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-04 13:55:04 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: 1325394    

Description Peter Rajnoha 2016-05-04 13:24:02 UTC
I need to add conflict for certain version of lvm2-libs package in device-mapper-event package, so I have this in lvm2.spec file (device-mapper-event is subpackage of lvm2):

%package -n device-mapper-event
Conflicts: lvm2-libs < 2.02.111

Now, when I tried this, the conflict was not detected properly by rpm. I had lvm2-libs-2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64 installed, which is less that 2.02.111 and so it's surely conflicting version:

[1] rhel7-a/~ # rpm -q lvm2-libs
lvm2-libs-2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64

[1] rhel7-a/~ # rpm -q device-mapper-event
device-mapper-event-1.02.84-14.el7.x86_64

[1] rhel7-a/~ # rpm -vv -F device-mapper-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm device-mapper-libs-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm device-mapper-event-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm device-mapper-event-libs-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm &> log

# grep "Conflicts: lvm2-libs" log 
D: Conflicts: lvm2-libs < 2.02.111                          NO  

--> so it's "NO" for no conflict, despite the version of lvm2-libs installed is lvm2-libs-2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64 (so lower version than 2.02.111).

====

Now, if I try Conflict but without specifying the version, the conflict is detected:

# rpm -q lvm2-libs
lvm2-libs-2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64

# rpm -q device-mapper-event
device-mapper-event-1.02.84-14.el7.x86_64

# rpm -vv -F device-mapper-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm device-mapper-libs-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm device-mapper-event-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm device-mapper-event-libs-1.02.124-1.el7.x86_64.rpm &> log

# grep "Conflicts: lvm2-libs" log 
D: Conflicts: lvm2-libs                                     YES (db provides)

===

So it looks like rpm has an issue with version checking for the Conflicts line.

Comment 2 Alasdair Kergon 2016-05-04 13:49:38 UTC
What about the epoch?

Comment 3 Peter Rajnoha 2016-05-04 13:55:04 UTC
Yeah, it was the epoch indeed - I realized that later on... I got mislead by the name of the package itself which doesn't have epoch there.