Bug 190458 - foo.i386 vs foo.x86_64
Summary: foo.i386 vs foo.x86_64
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 177736
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rpm   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 4.0
Hardware: x86_64 Linux
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Paul Nasrat
QA Contact: Mike McLean
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2006-05-02 15:48 UTC by David Johnston
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:07 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-06-30 14:12:28 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description David Johnston 2006-05-02 15:48:01 UTC
Request for enhancement

Description of problem:
On x86_64 platforms, a single package can get installed twice (once as 32-bit,
once as 64 bit).  This works fine (and is sometimes necessary) but can cause
problems when the package is upgraded.  The most common symptom is an error like
"Transaction Check Error:   file /usr/share/man/man1/asn1parse.1ssl.gz from 
install of openssl-0.9.7a-43.8 conflicts with file from package 

Note that openssl-0.9.7a-43.8 appears to be conflicting with itself (the version
numbers are the same).

Suggested fix:
  %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}
  %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}

If this is done, the operator will be able to see the problem clearly:

A search through Bugzilla turned up several WONTFIX bugs from 2003 that relate
to this quirk of RPM on 64-bit systems.  In 2003, 64-bit systems where only used
by experienced operators with large budgets; this is no longer the case.

This fix won't solve the underlying problem, but it is a start.

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2006-05-02 22:40:02 UTC
FWIW, this is fixed in rpm-4.4.2 and later.

And the workaround is just to configure your own system by putting
    %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
in /etc/rpm/macros. 

Comment 2 Paul Nasrat 2006-06-30 14:12:28 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 177736 ***

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