Bug 435742 - libelf-devel conflicts with itself
libelf-devel conflicts with itself
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: elfutils (Show other bugs)
ia64 Linux
urgent Severity urgent
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Roland McGrath
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-ia64
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-03-03 12:11 EST by Doug Chapman
Modified: 2009-07-15 04:20 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-07-15 04:20:44 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Doug Chapman 2008-03-03 12:11:33 EST
Description of problem:
Not sure how we are avoiding this on the main x86/ppc koji builder but on my
ia64 koji builder after building elfutils-0.133-2 nothing builds (note, this is
not the same issue as the -1 package that was missing libasm, already cleaned
that one up).

It appears the elfutils-libelf-devel package conflicts with itself.  From the
spec file:

%package libelf-devel
Conflicts: libelf-devel
Obsoletes: libelf-devel <= 0.8.2-2

and, when koji tries to do a yum install of the packages, or if I try a yum
update on a test system:

Error: elfutils-libelf-devel conflicts with libelf-devel

Since we alrady have the obsoletes line in the specfile is the conflicts line

Or do I just have something messed up on my ia64 builds?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
Comment 1 Roland McGrath 2008-03-03 15:18:00 EST
That is odd.  The main koji builders successfully built things with
elfutils-0.133-2 in the repo.  I did a test install (using rpm, not yum) and had
no errors.  It seems odd that there would be something specific to ia64 about this.

I think it's fine to remove the Conflicts: line and will do it in the next
build.  But I'm not hurrying to do another build since the mainstream arch set
seems to be fine with 0.133-2.
Comment 2 Doug Chapman 2008-03-03 16:40:39 EST

FYI, I confirmed that removing the conflicts line does resolve my issues.  Still
seems a mystery that this is just a problem on ia64 however.

Either way, can we make the change so that next time elfutils is built we get
this fix?  For now I have a special version in the ia64 koji which will allow us
to make progress until then.


- Doug
Comment 3 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 01:44:27 EDT
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2008-05-21 15:48:55 EDT
elfutils-0.135-1.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7
Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2008-05-21 15:51:29 EDT
elfutils-0.135-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2008-05-21 15:53:06 EDT
elfutils-0.135-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2008-05-28 22:39:48 EDT
elfutils-0.135-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update elfutils'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F7/FEDORA-2008-4457
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2008-07-30 16:08:39 EDT
elfutils-0.135-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2008-07-30 16:11:41 EDT
elfutils-0.135-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 10 Bug Zapper 2009-06-09 19:39:51 EDT
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 9.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '9'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
Comment 11 Bug Zapper 2009-07-15 04:20:44 EDT
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

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