Description of problem: When I try to install nss-pam-ldapd with yum I have the following error: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so from install of nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.5-2.fc13.x86_64 conflicts with file from package nss_ldap-264-9.fc13.x86_64 How reproducible: Install nss_ldap package Install with yum nss-pam-ldapd package Actual results: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so from install of nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.5-2.fc13.x86_64 conflicts with file from package nss_ldap-264-9.fc13.x86_64 Expected results: No conflicts Additional info:
Applications will generally only be able to use one libnss_ldap.so.2, so it doesn't make much sense to have both of them installed. This at least prevents any unintended switchovers which could happen if we added an "obsoletes:" tag to the nss-pam-ldapd package. On my own system, I used 'yum shell' to switch over: yum shell > install nss-pam-ldapd > erase nss_ldap > run > quit After that there's still the matter of starting the nslcd service. So long as we continue to provide both packages, I'm not there's a way that we can do this more smoothly.
This is the intended behavior as described above. Would you mind closing the bug please?
Oops, I forgot that the nss_ldap/pam_ldap split didn't happen in time for F13, so we depend on the nss_ldap package to provide the pam_ldap module. Moving this to assigned.
nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-1.fc13
The correct link for the update request is https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc13 -- if you can test the package there, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
Ok I see that there are two libraries named libnss_ldap.so.2 in /lib and /usr/lib. Is it correct? In this case you can close the bug. Thank you!
The libraries being in different locations avoids the file conflict, but when an application goes to use the "ldap" source, it will only ever get one or the other unless tricks are being played with $LD_LIBRARY_PATH (the locations work out so that by default, nss-pam-ldapd's module will tend to be found first), so you can't use both at the same time. If it's all the same to you, I'll leave this open so that pushing the nss-pam-ldapd update to fix the file conflict will close it -- it's marginally easier to find open bugs than closed ones, as bugzilla's default search parameters don't include searching closed bugs, and I'm hoping people who run into the same problem before the update is pushed will find this report.
nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 nss-pam-ldapd'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc13
nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
I am seeing the conflict when trying to install rawhide today: file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so conflicts between attempted installs of nss-pam-lapd-0.7.6-2.fc14.x86_64 and nss_ldap-265-4.fc14.x86_64. Should I file a new bug for that?
In Raw Hide they both require the pam_ldap module, which is now a separate package. The big problem before the pam_ldap package was split out was that nss-pam-ldapd required nss_ldap (which provided the module) while at the same time conflicting with it at the file level. In practice, it doesn't make sense to have both of them installed at the same time (libc will always just use the "first" one it finds), so a conflict, now that it's possible to not have both installed and still have both an nsswitch and PAM module, is probably okay.
I see thanks: I filed bug 604978 for rawhide: maybe it is just a comps issue?