The packages conflict with other packages in either Extras or Core. Details following in next comment.
html-xml-utils-3.7-3.fc5.i386.rpm File conflict with: /usr/bin/count File conflict with: /usr/share/man/man1/count.1.gz => Package conflicts with: fish - 1.21.12-0.fc5.i386
devel: html-xml-utils - 3.7-4.fc6.i386 File conflict with: /usr/share/man/man1/count.1.gz File conflict with: /usr/bin/count File conflict with: /usr/bin/extract => Package conflicts with: fish - 1.21.12-1.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: csound - 5.03.0-3.fc6.i386
normalize - 0.7.7-2.lvn6.i386 File conflict with: /usr/share/man/man1/normalize.1.gz File conflict with: /usr/bin/normalize => Package conflicts with: html-xml-utils - 3.7-4.fc6.i386
This same error is still occuring in fc6: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/count conflicts between attempted installs of html-xml-utils-3.7-4.fc6 and fish-1.21.12-1.fc6 file /usr/share/man/man1/count.1.gz conflicts between attempted installs of html-xml-utils-3.7-4.fc6 and fish-1.21.12-1.fc6
Just trying to find time to sort it. Gavin.
How do I resolve this again?
Well, FESCO needs to tell whether explict RPM "Conflicts: ..." are permitted in Fedora Extras. Generally, file names like "count" and "extract" are much too generic for the /usr/bin namespace. It would be wise if developers used some sort of prefix to avoid (or reduce the risk of) clashes.
(In reply to comment #7) > Well, FESCO needs to tell whether explict RPM "Conflicts: ..." are > permitted in Fedora Extras. Well, yes, FESCo or the PC should sort this out. Anyway: > Generally, file names like "count" and "extract" are much too generic > for the /usr/bin namespace. It would be wise if developers used some sort > of prefix to avoid (or reduce the risk of) clashes. Much agreed. This is an area where Fedora IMHO should not allow Conflicts (explicit or implicit) (*). This sepcific problem should be fixed in a different way. (*) An explicit conflicts for example might be acceptable to prevent that both postfix and sendmail get installed at the same time (not the best exmple as it might be possible these days, but it should show what I mean)
I poked the Packaging Commitee. Draft: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
html-xml-utils - 3.7-4.fc6.i386 Conflicts: 13 File conflict in: /usr/bin/count /usr/bin/extract /usr/share/man/man1/count.1.gz Packages with the same files: fish - 1.21.12-1.fc6.i386 libextractor - 0.5.17a-1.fc7.i386 csound - 5.03.0-9.fc7.i386
We really need to find a solution for the conflicts thing. We still after months have no ratified rules from the Packaging Committee how to handle conflicts (latest proposal is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts -- seems there were enough votes on the mailinglist, but its still in the Drafts section). And after having those rules and cleaning up the repo we IMHO need a script running periodically somewhere that checks for implicit and explicit conflicts. Anyway, I'm not in FESCo anymore and I have enough on my plate already, so I'll leave that to somebody else.
html-xml-utils - 3.7-4.fc6.i386 File conflict with: csound - 5.03.0-13.fc7.i386 /usr/bin/extract File conflict with: fish - 1.21.12-1.fc6.i386 /usr/bin/count /usr/share/man/man1/count.1.gz File conflict with: libextractor - 0.5.17a-1.fc7.i386 /usr/bin/extract File conflict with: surfraw - 1.0.7-3.fc8.noarch /usr/bin/cite
*** Bug 248685 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
file /usr/bin/normalize from install of html-xml-utils-3.7-4.fc6 conflicts with file from package normalize-0.7.7-2.lvn6 (bug 248685)
The conflict with "normalize" has been covered before in comment 3.
(In reply to comment #11) > We really need to find a solution for the conflicts thing. We still after months > have no ratified rules from the Packaging Committee how to handle conflicts > (latest proposal is at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts -- seems there were > enough votes on the mailinglist, but its still in the Drafts section). It seems that page has now moved out of the Drafts section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts However, the only suggestion that page has for this situation is to convince upstream to rename their binaries. Are there any plans or drafts to cover the case where upstream doesn't rename the binaries? > > And after having those rules and cleaning up the repo we IMHO need a script > running periodically somewhere that checks for implicit and explicit conflicts. > > Anyway, I'm not in FESCo anymore and I have enough on my plate already, so I'll > leave that to somebody else.
Alternatives? Prefix the binaries with a "hxu-"? Suffix the binaries with "-hxu" ?
(In reply to comment #17) > Alternatives? Alternatives is for alternative packages/binaries. Take a look at the "normalize" case - one works with sound and the other with XML - nothing in common, right ;-)
(In reply to comment #17) > Alternatives? > > Prefix the binaries with a "hxu-"? > > Suffix the binaries with "-hxu" ? Personally, I like the prefix idea the best. If we want to be *really* pedantic about it, we would worry about the possibility that someone would contribute a package named "hxu". (There do seem to be a fair number of packages whose names seem to be a random string of three letters. ;-) I think that the probability that someone would name a package "hxu" that would also contain a binary named "normalize" to be extremely low. If we don't care about this, (or are willing to deal with it when the situation arises) then I think that prefixing the binaries with "hxu-" would be a great way to go. If we do care about this situation, then the obvious solution would be to prefix the binaries with "html-xml-utils-". But that's actually kind of cumbersome. In that case, might I propose a conflicts-alternatives in reply to comment #18? (I know it wouldn't pretty, but I'm not certain what we can do that would be.)
For anyone whose still keeping score at this point, I just received the following error message from yum update: file /usr/share/man/man1/index.1.gz conflicts between attempted installs of netpbm-progs-10.35.32-1.fc7 and html-xml-utils-3.7-4.fc6
I see no more conflicts with html-xml-utils and latest netpbm updates to FC7, F8 as well as in rawhide. Should we close this?
> Should we close this? No, this ticket is not specific to netpbm.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
FYI, I was just able to update both fish and html-xml-utils to the latest in f9. So no more conflicts between those two. I don't have access to an f8 machine, so I can't check that.
This bug has been fixed in Fedora 9.
Not true. Easy to verify (comment 12) even without special tools: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/cite conflicts between attempted installs of surfraw-1.0.7-3.fc8.noarch and html-xml-utils-3.7-5.fc9.i386 [...] Also, please fill in your real name in bugzilla.
Notes for Gavin: * Upstream has renamed the programs in html-xml-utils >= 5.0 (released in November) to resolve the conflicts. * There are several releases you've missed: 3.8 to 5.1 * Careful! There's a _licence change_ from GPL to something else.