Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file /var/log/lastlog from install of setup-2.5.41-1 conflicts with file from package util-linux-2.12p-7 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): setup-2.5.41-1 How reproducible: Everytime. Expected results: No conflict.
Should be fixed in 2.5.42-1.
No, it isn't; reopening :-( Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file /var/log/lastlog from install of setup-2.5.42-1 conflicts with file from package util-linux-2.12p-7 Bill, couldn't we remove owning /var/log/lastlog from setup package but require latest util-linux for example?
No, beause if util-linux isn't installed first, it will get removed on update. util-linux.spec has: %ghost %attr(0400,root,root) %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/lastlog setup.spec has: %ghost %attr(0400,root,root) %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/lastlog Not sure what else to do here...
Created attachment 113368 [details] Ignore %ghost and %ghost file conflicts We could be skipping %ghost file conflicts if both packages mark the file as %ghost The patch above addresses strictly %ghost and %ghost behaviour.
Using current Rawhide, installing of the setup package is possible without any problem or conflict. Can somebody confirm this?
The bug is still there in FC4.
Really?! Reopening as FC4Blocker until somebody of Red Hat says the opposite...
I can confirm it: # rpm -U util-linux-2.12p-9.4.i386.rpm file /var/log/lastlog from install of util-linux-2.12p-9.4 conflicts with file from package setup-2.5.44-1 # rpm -q rpm rpm-4.4.1-21 Bill's comment #3 is true. There's %ghost in both packages. %post in util-linux: touch /var/log/lastlog chown root:root /var/log/lastlog chmod 0400 /var/log/lastlog
And *WHY* is this problem being reported against rpm? Skipping %ghost file conflicts is just the tip of an iceberg ...
Created attachment 115544 [details] setup vs util-linux rpmfi
Paul, can we *please* get rid of this problem very soon? It's very annoying and absolutely unnecessary! So the package setup avoids update of util-linux and the other way round! IMHO there are two possibilities: a) The Red Hat maintainers do fine RPM packaging (the way jbj prefers) b) Or we're using your workaround/hack from comment #4
This is a util-linux or setup, not an rpm, problem. rpm has flat zippo to say about what packages own what files. Reassigning to util-linux ...
Paul, what's up with rpm-4.4.3?
*** Bug 166959 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***