This is not a regression in the pam package. These files were always different between ia64 and i386 pam package. Perhaps something else changed between 4.6 and 4.7? rpm possibly?
This is a regression in pam. For example the conflicting file above /usr/share/doc/pam-0.77/ps/pam_modules.ps is present in the ia64 and i386 version in RHEL4/U6 and doesn't conflict. The diff between the same file in 4.7 is: --- pam_modules.ps.ia64 2008-03-27 13:52:25.000000000 +0100 +++ pam_modules.ps.i386 2008-03-27 13:42:49.000000000 +0100 @@ -8,10 +8,10 @@ %%EndComments %DVIPSWebPage: (www.radicaleye.com) %DVIPSCommandLine: dvips -R -q -t letter -o -%+ /tmp/linuxdoc-dir-15919/sgmltmp.pam_modules-latex-15919.dir/pam_modules.ps +%+ /tmp/linuxdoc-dir-2234/sgmltmp.pam_modules-latex-2234.dir/pam_modules.ps %+ pam_modules.dvi %DVIPSParameters: dpi=600, compressed -%DVIPSSource: TeX output 2008.03.27:0852 +%DVIPSSource: TeX output 2008.03.27:0842 %%BeginProcSet: texc.pro %! /TeXDict 300 dict def TeXDict begin/N{def}def/B{bind def}N/S{exch}N/X{S clearly they don't differ in content.
NO! This is NOT a regression in PAM - look at the pam-0.77-66.23 (version from RHEL4/U6) these files were always different between architectures.
The conflict might have always been there, it's just that in RHEL 4.7 rpm no longer completely ignores them. Previously all sorts of checking was skipped for large number of directories, such as docdirs, translations etc.
Yes, that's what I expected. Unfortunately to solve this problem the pam package would have to be changed to split out the documentation into a separate subpackage. Would that be appropriate for RHEL-4.7 package? When the public beta is already out so possible problems with this split will not be found by public testing? It was really unfortunate to introduce this kind of change into RHEL-4.7 rpm without doing thorough check of shipped packages for conflicts in advance. We could fix them appropriately and with appropriate amount of testing, not this late in the RHEL-4.7 development cycle.
Bugs exhibiting this issue: bug #448905, bug #448906, bug #448907, bug #448909, bug #448910, bug #448911
Update: seeing this also on ppc. pam.ppc is installed by default where pam.ppc64 is not. When trying to install pam.ppc64 we have the same file conflict.
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.
As rpm is fixed to not report this conflict and the fix would require to create a subpackages I do not think this is appropriate for RHEL-4.8.