Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 445391
yum install of xulrunner w/o firefox has file conflicts
Last modified: 2010-03-14 17:28:48 EDT
Description of problem:
yum install of xulrunner w/o firefox has file conflicts. This is a problem when
dealing with packages with a dependancy on xulrunner, because yum won't complain
until rpm fails.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to intsall xulrunner via yum. (or try to run RNHQA for gnome-python2-extras)
Yum does not complain until rpm fails.
Yum should figure it out and either tell you why it failed before trying to
download files, or grab new firefox, too.
Suzanne, could you copy&paste exact error message you get when trying to install
[root@dhcp-100-2-166 ~]# yum -y install xulrunner
Loading "security" plugin
Loading "rhnplugin" plugin
There was an error communicating with RHN.
RHN support will be disabled.
Error communicating with server. The message was:
Setting up Install Process
Parsing package install arguments
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.beta5.4.el5 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Package Arch Version Repository Size
xulrunner i386 1.9-0.beta5.4.el5 Client 9.9 M
Install 1 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 9.9 M
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Check Error:
file /etc/gre.d/gre.conf from install of xulrunner-1.9-0.beta5.4.el5 conflicts
with file from package firefox-22.214.171.124-15.el5_1
(note: This is with 5.2's yum, yum-3.2.8-9.el5)
I think the best way to fix this is probably to add Requires: gecko-libs =
1.8.1.x to the old package, so it will notice there's a dependency upgrade in
the libaries and firefox will also get upgraded...
caillon: That won't have any useful effect, because the problem is only with
people who already _have_ the old package.
How likely would it be that causing both firefox & xulrunner to obsolete the old
firefox would fix it? Would that mean installing xulrunner (w/o firefox) would
remove the old firefox?
I don't know! I don't know if it's more important to a) allow xulrunner to be
installable without firefox, or b) to keep a browser on the system at all times
if one was there. In the case where it was _not_ there, the problem won't arise.
Well, the problem is that this error is occuring because the Requires SHOULD
have been there but wasn't. We should issue an ASYNC in 5.1 and have people
update to that BEFORE upgrading to 5.2. AFAIK, all upgrades SHOULD be done on
an updated system, anyway, no?
AFAICS, there's no way we can fix the upgrade if we don't do what I suggested in
comment 3 (and this one).
Hmm. Well, nspluginwrapper requires gecko-libs = 1.9, and I think I'm seeing the
Ignore that last comment, I was thinking this was assigned to a different package.
So I'm pretty sure we can have:
conflicts: firefox < 3.0-0.beta5.3.el5
...in the xulrunner package, which yum will then use as information to upgrade
firefox if xulrunner is installed.
 i.e. please test it before you push the zero day errata :)
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
IMHO desn't make much sense to fix this bug in rhel‑5.3.0 when it should be
already fixed by updating to rhel‑5.2.
Tracking this bug for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 Release Notes.
Already fixed in 3.0.4.