Bug 604978 - file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so conflicts between attempted installs of nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc14.x86_64 and nss_ldap-265-4.fc14.x86_64.
file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so conflicts between attempted installs of nss-pa...
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: nss-pam-ldapd (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nalin Dahyabhai
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: Reopened
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-06-17 03:53 EDT by Jens Petersen
Modified: 2010-06-24 17:01 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-06-24 17:01:34 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jens Petersen 2010-06-17 03:53:43 EDT
Description of problem:
file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so conflicts between attempted installs of
nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc14.x86_64 and nss_ldap-265-4.fc14.x86_64.

Steps to Reproduce:
- yum install nss-pam-lapd on rawhide.

or

- try to install rawhide

Is it intentional that is it installed by default in f14?

from @base:
  <packagereq type="default">nss-pam-ldapd</packagereq>
Comment 1 Nalin Dahyabhai 2010-06-17 13:00:27 EDT
(In reply to comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> file /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so conflicts between attempted installs of
> nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.6-2.fc14.x86_64 and nss_ldap-265-4.fc14.x86_64.

Yeah, you really only want one or the other installed at any given time.  When libc goes to load libnss_ldap.so.2 to look up information, it's just going to use the first one it finds (unless $LD_LIBRARY_PATH is in use, and I wouldn't recommend it generally here).

> Steps to Reproduce:
> - yum install nss-pam-lapd on rawhide.
> 
> or
> 
> - try to install rawhide
> 
> Is it intentional that is it installed by default in f14?
> 
> from @base:
>   <packagereq type="default">nss-pam-ldapd</packagereq>    

The change of which of the two is installed by default is intentional, yes.  I can't put an "obsoletes:" in there because I'm trying to not surprise people on upgrades.  That said, if you have an idea for avoiding problems here, I'm open.
Comment 2 Jens Petersen 2010-06-20 21:00:35 EDT
So notabug?
Comment 3 Nalin Dahyabhai 2010-06-21 11:09:45 EDT
I guess not, though I continue to be open to ideas here.  Thanks!
Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2010-06-22 03:42:54 EDT
Hmm, so no way to install rawhide until Alpha?
Comment 5 Nalin Dahyabhai 2010-06-22 11:35:08 EDT
Um, what?  Can you elaborate on what's going on here?
Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2010-06-23 01:30:13 EDT
Sorry for being unclear.

> (In reply to comment #0)
> > - try to install rawhide

I can't install rawhide because of this conflict.
Comment 7 Nalin Dahyabhai 2010-06-23 17:38:47 EDT
That's not more information than I had before.

How are you installing?  Are you upgrading using yum?  Are you installing from a nightly live CD?  Are you booting from F13 media and then adding a Raw Hide repository?  If you're booting from F13 media, are you leaving the F13 repositories enabled?

Either way, do you know if both packages are being selected from the start, or is one selected, with the second being pulled in because of dependencies?  If you're using anaconda one way or another, and both are somehow being selected by default, what happens when you customize package selection and turn one of them off?
Comment 8 Jens Petersen 2010-06-23 20:59:04 EDT
(In reply to comment #7)
> How are you installing?  Are you upgrading using yum?  Are you installing from
> a nightly live CD?  Are you booting from F13 media and then adding a Raw Hide
> repository?  If you're booting from F13 media, are you leaving the F13
> repositories enabled?

(Nightly live does not boot for me.)

Yes, it is a net install via f13 and switching to rawhide repo:
ie replacing the f13 repo with rawhide.

> Either way, do you know if both packages are being selected from the start, or
> is one selected, with the second being pulled in because of dependencies?  If
> you're using anaconda one way or another, and both are somehow being selected
> by default, what happens when you customize package selection and turn one of
> them off?    

Dunno if it could be some anaconda weirdness with the switching
of repo.  I will try now to deselect nss-pam-ldapd.
Comment 9 Jens Petersen 2010-06-23 21:20:21 EDT
So yes if I customize and unselect:

>   <packagereq type="default">nss-pam-ldapd</packagereq>    

The conflict does not occur in anaconda.

So do you want to remove it from @base or make it optional? :)
Comment 10 Jens Petersen 2010-06-23 21:21:21 EDT
If you like I can also commit the change to comps.git.
Comment 11 Nalin Dahyabhai 2010-06-24 11:12:00 EDT
Is anaconda somehow attempting to merge the definitions of the package group across all of the repositories, even the disabled ones?

I could live with the package being optional -- it's only default because it's replacing nss_ldap as a default package in the group.  But then sssd is already in there as a default, and authconfig will prefer it over nss-pam-ldapd, so yeah, might as well make both it and pam_ldap optional.  I'll get to that later today if you don't get there first.

Thanks!
Comment 12 Nalin Dahyabhai 2010-06-24 17:01:34 EDT
Done, moving to closed.  Please reopen if this continues to create problems with the next Raw Hide push.

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