Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

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.

Description of problem:

This is on RHEL6, although the issue is demonstrated with 3rd party packages.

We have a custom noarch rpm (CoRA) that provides /usr/sbin/backup - a shell script.

If I install openafs from the ScientificLinux repos, which provides /usr/sbin/backup an elf binary, rpm doesn't complain:

# rpm -Uvh openafs-1.6.0-93.pre4.sl6.x86_64.rpm 
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:openafs                ########################################### [100%]

And it still thinks the CoRA package is okay.

# rpm -V CoRA
#

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.8.0-12.el6.x86_64

How reproducible:
Every time

I do get conflict messages on our Fedora machines and openafs from rpmfusion.

Your Fedora machines are i386 (well, any 32bit ix86), right?

This is easily reproducable on Fedora x86_64 too, it's an ages old flaw in how conflicts are calculated on multilib systems: file conflicts are resolved to prefer 64bit ELF files over 32bit (by default), but all (AFAICT) released versions of rpm prefer 64bit ELF over non-ELF files (such as scripts) too, which is wrong.

Fixed upstream now and also ACK for RHEL.

Yeah, I tested with i386 Fedora.

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1737.html