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 packages. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): libselinux-1.19.1-7 How reproducible: 1. See which files are owned by the i386 package: # rpm -ql libselinux.i386 /lib/libselinux.so.1 /usr/sbin/avcstat /usr/sbin/getenforce /usr/sbin/getsebool /usr/sbin/selinuxenabled /usr/sbin/setenforce /usr/sbin/setsebool /usr/sbin/togglesebool /usr/share/man/man8/avcstat.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/booleans.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/getenforce.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/getsebool.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/selinux.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/selinuxenabled.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/setenforce.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/setsebool.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/togglesebool.8.gz 2. See which files are owned by the x86_64 package: # rpm -ql libselinux.x86_64 /lib64/libselinux.so.1 /usr/sbin/avcstat /usr/sbin/getenforce /usr/sbin/getsebool /usr/sbin/selinuxenabled /usr/sbin/setenforce /usr/sbin/setsebool /usr/sbin/togglesebool /usr/share/man/man8/avcstat.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/booleans.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/getenforce.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/getsebool.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/selinux.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/selinuxenabled.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/setenforce.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/setsebool.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/togglesebool.8.gz 3. Verify the two installed packages: # rpm -V libselinux.i386 libselinux.x86_64 S.5....T /usr/sbin/avcstat S.5....T /usr/sbin/getenforce S.5....T /usr/sbin/getsebool S.5....T /usr/sbin/selinuxenabled S.5....T /usr/sbin/setenforce S.5....T /usr/sbin/setsebool S.5....T /usr/sbin/togglesebool .......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 Actual results: rpm -V reports discrepancies because the two packages they think own the same files. Expected results: rpm -V shouldn't produce any output.
Paul, How is this supposed to work? Is this a bug in rpm? libselinux? or neither? Dan
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, not both. 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 packaging issue. 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 release.
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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0210.html