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 1653241 - Missing conflict in spec
Summary: Missing conflict in spec
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1640985
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: nss
Version: 8.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
low
low
Target Milestone: rc
: 8.0
Assignee: nss-nspr-maint
QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-11-26 11:11 UTC by Jaroslav Mracek
Modified: 2018-12-12 15:26 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-12-12 15:26:43 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jaroslav Mracek 2018-11-26 11:11:33 UTC
Description of problem:
I can install nss.i686 and nss.x86_64 with different version on same system, but it results in file conflict:

Error: Transaction check error:
  file /usr/share/man/man5/cert8.db.5.gz conflicts between attempted installs of nss-3.39.0-1.0.el8.i686 and nss-3.39.0-1.1.el8.x86_64
  file /usr/share/man/man5/cert9.db.5.gz conflicts between attempted installs of nss-3.39.0-1.0.el8.i686 and nss-3.39.0-1.1.el8.x86_64
  file /usr/share/man/man5/key3.db.5.gz conflicts between attempted installs of nss-3.39.0-1.0.el8.i686 and nss-3.39.0-1.1.el8.x86_64
  file /usr/share/man/man5/key4.db.5.gz conflicts between attempted installs of nss-3.39.0-1.0.el8.i686 and nss-3.39.0-1.1.el8.x86_64
  file /usr/share/man/man5/pkcs11.txt.5.gz conflicts between attempted installs of nss-3.39.0-1.0.el8.i686 and nss-3.39.0-1.1.el8.x86_64
  file /usr/share/man/man5/secmod.db.5.gz conflicts between attempted installs of nss-3.39.0-1.0.el8.i686 and nss-3.39.0-1.1.el8.x86_64

Dnf cannot resolve this conflict according metadata, therefore transaction fails after downloading of rpm.

Line like this should solve the issue:
Conflicts: nss < %{version}-%{release}

Comment 1 Daiki Ueno 2018-11-26 14:09:00 UTC
Thank you for the report and the suggestion.

> Conflicts: nss < %{version}-%{release}

Does that mean there should be only a single NSS version installable on the system, whether it is multilib or not?

It seems we previously allowed installation of parallel versions of NSS for the nss-pem dependency on NSS (bug 1316546 comment 11), while the package is gone in RHEL-8 (bug 1542409).

Comment 2 Hubert Kario 2018-12-06 13:07:33 UTC
isn't there a dedicated flag for saying that the secondary package needs to be at the same version as the primary package?

this:

> Conflicts: nss < %{version}-%{release}

seems to abuse the conflict resolution...

also, will it work for preventing update of just the secondary package?

Comment 3 Tomas Mraz 2018-12-06 13:18:08 UTC
Please do not add non-sensical Conflicts into multilib spec files to workaround dnf deficiencies! This should be clearly rejected!

Comment 4 Hubert Kario 2018-12-06 13:30:15 UTC
correction, that looks like a deficiency of dnf, see https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/834 and bug 1653683

Comment 5 Daiki Ueno 2018-12-12 15:26:43 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1640985 ***


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