Description of problem:
Running "rpm -V libselinux.i386 libselinux.x86_64" always shows discrepancies
because files with the same name, but different contents, are "owned" by both
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1. See which files are owned by the i386 package:
# rpm -ql libselinux.i386
2. See which files are owned by the x86_64 package:
# rpm -ql libselinux.x86_64
3. Verify the two installed packages:
# rpm -V libselinux.i386 libselinux.x86_64
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/avcstat.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/booleans.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/getenforce.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/getsebool.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/selinux.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/selinuxenabled.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/setenforce.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/setsebool.8.gz
.......T d /usr/share/man/man8/togglesebool.8.gz
rpm -V reports discrepancies because the two packages they think own the same files.
rpm -V shouldn't produce any output.
How is this supposed to work?
Is this a bug in rpm? libselinux? or neither?
It's a bug in user expectations. The files are, indeed, different, and so *must* be displayed
by --verify. (Note: the man pages are probably different only because the *.gz was not generated with
gzip -n, which is currently a redhat-rpm-config config issue.)
Separate the excutables from the libraries. Then both i386 and
x86_64 libraries can be installed w/o conlflict because "lib" != "lib64".
The choice of executables is then determined by chosing either an x86_64 or i386 executable package,
That will cause rpm --verify to be silent.
I'm a bit puzzled by the resolution of CLOSED/WONTFIX on this report. The
solution for this is, as Jeff mentioned, to move the binaries into a separate
single-arch package, e.g. something like "libselinux-utils.x86_64". This fixes
the issue with "rpm -V", and also ensures that only 64-bit binaries are
installed. (With the binaries in both lib packages, you can end up with 32-bit
binaries if you install the i386 package second.)
BTW, I originally had this report assigned to "libselinux", but it was
reassigned to "rpm", giving the impression that I was reporting a bug in rpm,
which was never the case.
The very same issue exists in RHEL 5 (libselinux-1.33.4-2.el5).
Reopening as there was no explanation as to why the report was closed.
Also reassigning back to libselinux, as this is not an RPM bug, but a libselinux
Again, this can be solved by moving the binaries & man pages into a separate
package that is installed only for x86_64, i.e.:
libselinux.i386 - contains /lib/libselinux.so.1
libselinux.x86_64 - contains /lib64/libselinux.so.1
libselinux-utils.x86_64 - contains /usr/sbin/*, /usr/share/man/*
Fixed in libselinux-1.33.4-5.1.el5
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed
products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.