Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
Summary: debuginfo package conflict between binutils and mingw32-binutils Product: Fedora Version: 12 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: mingw32-binutils AssignedTo: rjones@redhat.com ReportedBy: jarin.franek@post.cz QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: berrange@redhat.com, rjones@redhat.com, fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora
Description of problem: Trying to install both binutils debuginfo and mingw32-binutils debuginfo packages (In fact, I did install debuginfo for the whole distribution). The transaction check fails with a conflict.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): mingw32-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64 binutils-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.x86_64
How reproducible: see the steps:
Steps to Reproduce: 1. debuginfo-install binutils 2. debuginfo-install mingw32-binutils
Actual results:
----------------------------------------snippet Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Check Error: file /usr/src/debug/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/bfd/elf.c from install of mingw32-binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from package binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/src/debug/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/bfd/elfcode.h from install of mingw32-binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from package binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/src/debug/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/bfd/section.c from install of mingw32-binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from package binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/src/debug/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/gas/dw2gencfi.c from install of mingw32-binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from package binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/src/debug/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/ld/ldmain.c from install of mingw32-binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from package binutils-debuginfo-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.x86_64
Error Summary -------------
----------------------------------------snippet
Expected results: No conflict. Since both binutils and mingw32-binutils install in-parallel without problems, I would expect their debuginfo packages to install in-parallel as well.
Additional info: May concern other mingw32-* packages as well.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-11-20 16:19:32 EDT --- Acknowledged ... this looks nasty.
It also looks like it would affect any package that used the same source as another package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-11-20 17:56:54 EDT --- Yeah, all those are potentially affected, see also: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=556 Though it isn't always a problem because, if all the files are the same, RPM won't complain about the conflict (this explains why xine-lib-extras-freeworld-debuginfo apparently doesn't cause such issues). But if there are files generated during the build based on differing configuration, or just differently patched by the 2 packages, those conflicts will show up.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2009-11-23 06:03:35 EDT --- Why is the -debuginfo RPM putting stuff into a directory named after the SOURCE0 file, rather than named after the SRPM. That would seem to be a guaranteed recipe for disaster. IMHO we need to fix the macros generating debuginfo to use SRPM name for thebase directory.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-11-23 08:43:58 EDT --- It's not really put "into a directory named after the SOURCE0 file", it's just using the directory name the sources were already in, which is generally named after the source tarball (though some tarballs are weird and contain differently-named directories, or no subdirectories at all).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-11-24 04:37:31 EDT --- Judging by comment 4, it seems a simple way to resolve this would be to rename the binutils-* directory to mingw32-binutils-* just before building. I'll try this now ...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-11-24 04:53:28 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=373371) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=373371) mingw32-binutils.spec.patch
The attachment fixes this. Debuginfo files are now named things like:
/usr/src/debug/mingw32-binutils-2.19.51.0.14/binutils-2.19.51.0.14/bfd/elf.c
However I'm not sure this is the best way to fix it. Can we make a global change to /usr/lib/rpm/mingw32-find-debuginfo.sh instead to add some sort of fixed path (so we use /usr/src/debug/mingw32 instead of /usr/src/debug)?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-11-24 05:06:10 EDT --- Another thought:
Shouldn't RPM be able to install the files anyway unless they are different?
The binutils & mingw32-binutils packages would have identical upstream source and hence identical files, *unless* one of the packages was patching the source files.
It turns out that binutils patches the following source files: bfd/elfcode.h bfd/section.c ld/ldmain.c
mingw32-binutils doesn't patch any files. (But should it do?)
The list of files doesn't quite match the conflicting files reported in comment 0, although it is fairly similar.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-11-24 05:22:56 EDT --- AFAIK, Binutils also autogenerates some files during build, they may be different for different targets.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
--- Comment #9 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com 2010-11-04 01:53:18 EDT ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '12'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 12's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 12 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539698
Bug Zapper triage@lists.fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?(jarin.franek@post | |.cz) | Last Closed| |2010-12-03 22:04:12
--- Comment #10 from Bug Zapper triage@lists.fedoraproject.org 2010-12-03 22:04:12 EST ---
Fedora 12 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-12-02. Fedora 12 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
-
Red Hat Bugzilla