Description of problem:
The tog-pegasus package and the libcmpiCppImpl0 package both provide:
(or /usr/lib/libcmpiCppImpl.so for i386 arch)
This prevents them from being installed at the same time.
can you tell me a bit more about how you ended up with this issue.
libcmpiCppImpl0 is not a package as far as I can tell, only
libcmpiutil is, I assume that was the package where you had a conflict
which is surprizing. Could you tell me which version of
led to that problem ?
thanks in advance,
In the absence of feedback to my question in comment #c3 I think we should
close that bug as this issue wasn't reproduced by us and we can't guess
what actually happened,
Reopen if one can reproduce and give the details,
For reference purposes:
The RPM file for the libcmpiCppImpl0 package is libcmpiCppImpl0-2.0.1-5.el6.x86_64.rpm.
In my case:
Error: tog-pegasus-libs conflicts with libcmpiCppImpl0-2.0.1-5.fc17.i686
Error: libcmpiCppImpl0 conflicts with 2:tog-pegasus-2.11.1-7.fc17.i686
tog-pegasus.i686 2:2.11.1-5.fc17 @anaconda-0
tog-pegasus-libs.i686 2:2.11.1-5.fc17 @anaconda-0
libcmpiCppImpl0.i686 2.0.1-5.fc17 @anaconda-0
My guess is that this issue came from the preupgrade utility, since we got the @anaconda-0 parammeter. I had done the upgrade long time ago from fc15 to 16 and now from 16 to 17.
I did the same on another computer and this issue did not come up. In this installation, the one with this bug, I had a kernel issue after the upgrade, it was running the previous kernel and therefore I had to run some yum's in order to complete the upgrade.
I removed the package and it told me it also removed sblim-cmpi-dns version 1.0-5.fc17 also from @anaconda-0.
This seems to have done it. My question now is what was this package? I hope it doesn't mean some kind of security threat.
I got this error by following the following steps:
Install RHEL 6.2 from DVD iso.
After the installation:
yum install "*"
The goal was to install all RPMS so that I could use RHN to build a security patch bundle.
When checking what is installed, verses what is planned to be installed:
[root@clifishe-lnx2 foo]# rpm -qa | grep libcmpi
[root@clifishe-lnx2 foo]# rpm -qa |grep tog-p
So, tog-pegasus is already installed at the time when it wants to install these two:
The only yum repo I have in place at the time is from the DVD iso.
[root@clifishe-lnx2 foo]# yum whatprovides libcmpiCppImpl0 | grep libc | cut -d: -f1 | sort | uniq
The yum repos are created from the RHEL 6.2 Workstation DVD iso downloaded in Aug 2012.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this
request at this time.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
I can confirm this on RHEL 6.3 up to date:
# cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.3 (Santiago)
# rpm -ql tog-pegasus-libs | grep libcmpiCppImpl
which of course conflicts with libcmpiCppImpl0:
# rpm -qpl libcmpiCppImpl0-2.0.1-5.el6.x86_64.rpm
From the tog-pegasus Makefile.Release:
PEGASUS_LIBRARIES += \
PEGASUS_PROVIDER_MANAGERS += \
While this bug is valid, it has nothing to do with libcmpiutils component but sblim-cmpi-devel.
/usr/lib64/libcmpiCppImpl.so packed in tog-pegasus-libs differs from /usr/lib64/libcmpiCppImpl.so packed in libcmpiCppImpl0. Both libraries are needed (but not at the same time - usually user of SFCB CIMOM installs libcmpiCppImpl0 package, user of OpenPegasus CIMOM installs tog-pegasus-libs) -> packages conflict. This is not a bug, it's intention.
But /usr/lib64/libcmpiCppImpl.so on the OpenPegasus side has been moved from tog-pegasus package to tog-pegasus-libs subpackage and that was not updated in sblim-cmpi-devel spec file. Currently sblim-cmpi-devel conflicts with tog-pegasus, but it should conflict with tog-pegasus-libs. This is bug and it's tracked in bz988239. May I close this as a duplicate or there's something I'm missing?
I do not seem to have access to BZ988239. I too am having this issue.
Closing, the conflict is intentional, see comment#14.