Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 51624 - update of openldap-2.0.11-8 conflicts with pine
update of openldap-2.0.11-8 conflicts with pine
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: up2date (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jay Turner
Jay Turner
: Security
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2001-08-13 05:20 EDT by Landon Curt Noll
Modified: 2015-01-07 18:50 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2002-04-28 17:49:48 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 Landon Curt Noll 2001-08-13 05:20:55 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19-7.0.8 i686)

Description of problem:
One cannot install any of the openldap-2.0.11-8 updates if one has pine.
Pine appears to depend on a libiary that the openldap update removes

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.install pine-4.33-7.i386.rpm
2.attempt to update openldap-2.0.11-8 packges

Actual Results:  error: failed dependencies:
	liblber.so.1   is needed by pine-4.33-7
	libldap.so.1   is needed by pine-4.33-7

Expected Results:  up2date would have bright over a pine update as well.

Additional info:
Comment 1 Mihai Ibanescu 2001-08-30 12:15:03 EDT
Updating openldap-2.0.11-8 should trigger a package install for
openldap12-1.2.12-3 (this is a Red Hat 7.0 box). The compatibility library is
not correctly found, and this seems to raise the problem.
Comment 2 Greg DeKoenigsberg 2002-04-28 11:56:59 EDT
Is this an RHN bug or a packaging bug?  And more to the point, if it's a
packaging bug -- which it seems to be -- then what is the proper mechanism for
closure of the bug?  Jay, can you help us with this policy question?
Comment 3 Landon Curt Noll 2002-04-28 17:49:43 EDT
My guess (and only a guess) is that this was a packaging bug.
Comment 4 Landon Curt Noll 2002-08-06 18:12:36 EDT
It looks like this bug has been fixed in RH7.2 and RH7.3.  
I am closing my bug with a resolution of WORKSFORME. 

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