Description of problem: I upgraded from F12 to F13. After the upgrade, I have a new file /etc/krb5.conf.rpmnew which is an identical duplicate of /etc/krb5.conf. # ls -l /etc/krb5* -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 449 Feb 16 14:38 /etc/krb5.conf -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 449 Feb 16 14:38 /etc/krb5.conf.rpmnew # sha1sum /etc/krb5* e4dc65f41d4ba63532599447cc315e5e4bc9c5c1 /etc/krb5.conf e4dc65f41d4ba63532599447cc315e5e4bc9c5c1 /etc/krb5.conf.rpmnew There is no need to create a .rpmnew file in this case. I suspect this is a RPM packaging error, perhaps related to multilib/multiarch support. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): # rpm -q -f /etc/krb5.conf krb5-libs-1.7.1-10.fc13.x86_64 krb5-libs-1.7.1-10.fc13.i686
The only thing RPM should be checking here is the permissions (vaguely -- it uses them to check if the type of the file has changed, for example from a regular file to a symlink or whatnot) and the checksum of the contents of the file when compared to what's already on the disk. The default F-13 contents are different from those in F-12, so that would explain the presence of a .rpmnew file, but that doesn't explain krb5.conf. Updating the packages manually with rpm with -vv and asking strace to show rename() calls turns up: D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 449 /etc/krb5.conf;4c0547b4 rename("/etc/krb5.conf;4c0547b4", "/etc/krb5.conf") = 0 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 449 /etc/krb5.conf;4c0547b4 altname rename("/etc/krb5.conf;4c0547b4", "/etc/krb5.conf.rpmnew") = 0 warning: /etc/krb5.conf created as /etc/krb5.conf.rpmnew D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 449 /etc/krb5.conf skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 449 /etc/krb5.conf skip which suggests that the 64-bit package's krb5.conf actually overwrites the one that's on the system (the files that go in right after are 64-bit, I'll attach the full log), and the i686 package's is treated as a conflict, so it gets created with the .rpmnew extension.
Created attachment 418769 [details] full log from "strace -e rename rpm --oldpackage -Uvv krb5-libs-1.7.1-10.*"
Ccing the RPM maintainer. Panu, can you help me to understand what I'm doing wrong with the packaging here?
Looks the same as bug 597689: an unnecessary backup of config files gets created on multilib upgrade when the default contents change. Feel free to close this as a dupe, rpm failing to deal with the multilib case correctly here is hardly a packaging bug.
Okay, will do. Thanks! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 597689 ***