Bug 624310
| Summary: | SELinux module of package 389-admin not installed correctly after update | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] 389 | Reporter: | Manuel Faux <fedora> |
| Component: | Admin | Assignee: | Nathan Kinder <nkinder> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Chandrasekar Kannan <ckannan> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 1.2.6 | CC: | benl, fedora, jgalipea, nhosoi, rmeggins |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-09-24 21:18:20 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Manuel Faux
2010-08-15 23:51:30 UTC
Nathan, perhaps this is related to the problem in 389-ds-base when upgrading from 1.2.6 alpha or rc to the latest 1.2.6 rc7 with selinux. (In reply to comment #1) > Nathan, perhaps this is related to the problem in 389-ds-base when upgrading > from 1.2.6 alpha or rc to the latest 1.2.6 rc7 with selinux. I think the dirsrv module is installed in that case (it's just the relabelling via fixfiles that fails). This issue seems to be a bug in the 389-admin-1.1.11-0.1.a1 spec file where it things that the dirsrv-admin policy module should be removed since the 389-admin-selinux subpackage is being removed. It does not detect that this is indeed an upgrade since there is no new 389-admin-selinux being installed (the selinux module was merged into the 389-admin package). I don't think that there is an easy way to fix this as the bug is in the .a1 spec file. I think we should just release note this as it will only affect those running the early alpha builds where we had a separate selinux subpackage. It would be possible - but not very elegant - to rename the new SELinux module. But maybe it conflicts with the old module, which would have to be removed before. Not a very nice workaround. Would incrementing the module version solve the problem? Both modules currently have v 1.0.0. We cannot rename the module without causing other problems. Since the prior version with the spec file bug was an alpha release, it does not seem worthwhile to try to fix this. This issue should not be a problem when upgrading from any prior stable versions. |