RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 612693 - Add missing provides for compatibility to Fedora/EPEL packages
Summary: Add missing provides for compatibility to Fedora/EPEL packages
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: unicap
Version: 6.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
urgent
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Kamil Dudka
QA Contact: Desktop QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-07-08 19:24 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2018-11-14 15:49 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Prior to this update, the unicap package did not provide the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk virtual packages. As a result, it was not possible to install packages that depended on the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk packages. This update fixes the declaration of provides so that the unicap package now provides the aforementioned virtual packages.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-08-24 15:10:09 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
specfile fix (1.26 KB, patch)
2011-06-27 14:20 UTC, Kamil Dudka 		redhat: review+
Details | Diff
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2011:1202 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE unicap bug fix update 2011-08-24 15:09:50 UTC

Description Robert Scheck 2010-07-08 19:24:03 UTC 
Upstream of "unicap" package splitted up their package into three libraries
already some time ago. Unfortunately Red Hat did not do that split-up as well
as Fedora and EPEL already did.

For compatibility reasons, the binary "unicap" package needs to provide:

Provides: libucil = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicap = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicapgtk = %{version}-%{release}

For compatibility reasons, the binary "unicap-devel" package needs to provide:

Provides: libucil-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicap-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: libunicapgtk-devel = %{version}-%{release}

May you please add these provides very soon in order to avoid me adding a
nasty execption only for RHEL 6 to "ucview" - because EL-5 and F-11+ don't
have a single unicap package anymore...
Comment 2 Kamil Dudka 2010-07-08 19:41:43 UTC 
Exactly that should be already done, fixed in unicap-0.9.5-4.el6.  Feel free to reopen if that's not the case.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 581187 ***
Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2010-07-08 19:47:13 UTC 
Is that package available somewhere? Because building EPEL packages still
fails: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2306074&name=root.log
Comment 4 Kamil Dudka 2010-07-08 19:53:38 UTC 
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/6Workstation-beta2/source/SRPMS/unicap-0.9.5-4.el6.src.rpm
Comment 5 Robert Scheck 2010-07-08 20:10:01 UTC 
Haha. Found it!

$ rpm -qp --provides ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server/optional/ppc64/os/Packages/unicap-devel-0.9.5-4.el6.ppc64.rpm
warning: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server/optional/ppc64/os/Packages/unicap-devel-0.9.5-4.el6.ppc64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: NOKEY, key ID f21541eb
libucil-devel = unicap-0.9.5
libunicap-devel = unicap-0.9.5
libunicapgtk-devel = unicap-0.9.5
pkgconfig(libunicap) = 0.9.5
unicap-devel = 0.9.5-4.el6
unicap-devel(ppc-64) = 0.9.5-4.el6
$

May you please fix that? Please replace the wrong "%{name}-%{version}" by the
correct "%{version}-%{release}" - thank you :)
Comment 7 Kamil Dudka 2010-08-03 09:21:05 UTC 
Robert, thanks for digging the bug!  I somehow overlooked the mistake when the change went in.  Unfortunately it's too late to get the fix into 6.0.  It will be reviewed by Red Hat Product Management for the next minor release.
Comment 9 Robert Scheck 2010-12-30 03:04:02 UTC 
Kamil, what's the current status? Will that make it definately into RHEL 6.1?
Comment 10 Ondrej Vasik 2010-12-30 07:08:57 UTC 
There are always limited resources for RHEL updates, so unfortunately we can't guarantee that at the moment. If you want to increase the chances, please contact product support - bugzilla is just bug tracking tool for RHEL bugs.
Comment 11 Robert Scheck 2010-12-30 12:37:51 UTC 
Ondrej, please open your eyes, see and realize first, that this issue is really 
minor and the expected minor fix is going to break absolutely nothing.

Nevertheless I've cross-filed this issue as Service Request 394722.
Comment 12 Ondrej Vasik 2010-12-30 15:38:06 UTC 
My eyes are fully opened (and from my(devel) point of view it is really minor change and easyfix without any risk) - but I can't change the system for RHEL updates - even the minor changes have to go through the update process... and therefore it is much harder to make such changes in already released RHEL.

I know this is not perfect and even the easy to fix and safe things have to wait for many months for update, but even the rebuild could sometimes cause troubles.
Comment 13 Suzanne Logcher 2011-02-15 21:39:56 UTC 
This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.
Comment 15 Suzanne Logcher 2011-02-15 22:03:28 UTC 
This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.
Comment 19 Kamil Dudka 2011-06-27 14:20:27 UTC 
Created attachment 510105 [details]
specfile fix

Robert, please double-check.
Comment 20 Robert Scheck 2011-06-28 11:36:26 UTC 
The suggested patch is correct.
Comment 22 Petr Kovar 2011-07-04 17:08:26 UTC 
    Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    New Contents:
Prior to this update, the unicap package did not provide the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk virtual packages. As a result, it was not possible to install packages that depended on the libucil, libunicap and libunicap-gtk packages. This update fixes the declaration of provides so that the unicap package now provides the aforementioned virtual packages.
Comment 25 errata-xmlrpc 2011-08-24 15:10:09 UTC 
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1202.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.