Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 58942
should gnome-libs obsolete db1?
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:39:14 EDT
Tried to upgrade to gnome-libs-22.214.171.124.90-7 from Raw Hide. Got this:
file /usr/bin/db1_dump185 from install of gnome-libs-126.96.36.199.90-7 conflicts with
file from package db1-1.85-7
file /usr/lib/libdb1.so.2 from install of gnome-libs-188.8.131.52.90-7 conflicts with
file from package db1-1.85-7
My guess here is that gnome-libs is trying to obsolete db1, since db1 isn't in
Raw Hide. If that's the case, shouldn't the RPM know to remove db1? Also, if
that's what's going on, it seems somewhat incongruous to me, since there are
things outside of GNOME that depend on db1.
The idea is that in rawhide everything else depending on db1 will go away,
and it will remain purely to maintain the gnome-libs ABI.
I was advised not to Obsoletes: db1 for now, but I don't really understand the
technical issues there.
*** Bug 59264 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Jeremy, Bill - should I obsolete db1?
The downside is that adding an obsoletes means that upgrades where db1 was
installed (basically, all installs) will always pull in gnome-libs, which I'm
not sure we really want to do :/
Just having a conflicts might be the best solution (though I'd need to
double-check what the installer would do in that case)
Also, it needs to not freak out RHN, whichever solution we choose.
The goal is that anaconda and up2date's code will be a lot more similar now so
that we can catch the freak-ish rhn cases during installer testing
Does this suggest a need for a new kind of "Obsoletes" dependency
("MayObsolete"?) that would allow removing "MayObsoleted" package when the new
package is installed, but would not pull in the new package just to obsolete the
*** Bug 69185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is there a course of action here that's clearly safe and better than the
status quo, or should we just say screw it?
*** Bug 73138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 73139 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Does gnome-libs need to contain a shared db1 library? Wouldn't linking it
statically against its own db1 work around the problem?
This bug surfaces every once in a while, and will probably continue as the
GNOME1 libs aren't something that is easy to get completely rid of...
If libgnome currently links to shared db1 it changes the ABI to switch to
static db1, right?
Oh we can get rid of gnome-libs 1.x, just you wait. ;-)
Pretty much just waiting on gnucash.
Does this bug still need to be open? What is the concrete change to
make at this point?
I believe the bug still exists, but it may be mostly moot, considering
how long ago Red Hat last released a db1 package. I don't know enough
about how upgrading from a Red Hat release that old would work to know
whether the bug still matters.
From User-Agent: XML-RPC
Doesn't seem relevant anymore...