I've just had a problem on one of my x86_64 boxes with openssl package. I have an 32-bit only application that requires openssl libraries. When I attempted to install openssl.i686 (in addition to already present openssl.x86_64), it failed. The rpm complained about conflicting files (they were all manpages), and I needed to use --force option to install the thing.
The good folks at Red Hat were not able to reproduce it, and I don't have a spare x86_64 box to test it with original RHEL4 myself.
Would be nice if somebody could test installing openssl.i686 (in parallel to openssl.x86_64) on x86_64 box, both under CentOS 4 and under original RHEL4. It could be just something wrong with my installation, or there might be discrepancy between CentOS and RHEL openssl packages.
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I've just had a problem on one of my x86_64 boxes with openssl package. I have an 32-bit only application that requires openssl libraries. When I attempted to install openssl.i686 (in addition to already present openssl.x86_64), it failed. The rpm complained about conflicting files (they were all manpages), and I needed to use --force option to install the thing.
we seem to have a bug report at bugs.centos.org about this issue - can you add youself to that ? lets track it there..
Karanbir Singh wrote:
we seem to have a bug report at bugs.centos.org about this issue - can you add youself to that ? lets track it there..
OK, I did.
BTW, any chance CentOS will switch to Bugzilla? ;-)
The current system is... well... different... Probably the reason I usually fire off mail to mailing list, instead of going to bugs.centos.org. I personally find Bugzilla easier to use, and that is what almost everything else uses to track bugs (except few odd projets, like CentOS).
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
BTW, any chance CentOS will switch to Bugzilla? ;-)
The current system is... well... different... Probably the reason I usually fire off mail to mailing list, instead of going to bugs.centos.org. I personally find Bugzilla easier to use, and that is what almost everything else uses to track bugs (except few odd projets, like CentOS).
heh -- actually new 'bugzilla' installs seem rarer than new 'trac' installs.
Back early on in centos's life, when a sub-project of cAos, we had a bugzilla; a comple of security fixes in bugzilla were mandated by events, and a switch away occurred. Content was migrated, and some of the 'groups' rights confidential (security related) material 'leaked' briefly during the cutover.
'mantis' is the base for the current tracker, and has been reliable for centos since its uptake. I find it requires a mindshift to use properly, compared to my bugzilla habits, but that some of its default and configurable views are quicker for triaging and working bugs after some practice.
In packaging and tracking bugzilla, I find that there are some changes post its version 2.20.1 which impair the Preferences and User Preferences functions, and which are not yet fixed upstream. A return to bugzilla seems unlikely absent a more compelling reason the unfamiliarity of interface.
-- Russ Herrold
R P Herrold napsal(a):
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
BTW, any chance CentOS will switch to Bugzilla? ;-)
The current system is... well... different... Probably the reason I usually fire off mail to mailing list, instead of going to bugs.centos.org. I personally find Bugzilla easier to use, and that is what almost everything else uses to track bugs (except few odd projets, like CentOS).
heh -- actually new 'bugzilla' installs seem rarer than new 'trac' installs.
Good to mention. I guess we can think about switching to trac. Mantis suits pretty well now. Just imagine. Running trac we have ticketing system, wiki, and SVN together. I know trac is hard to get running vs mantis. But we can have e.g. specs files in SVN and access to spec files could help users with problems regarding updated rpms, etc. Regards, David
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I personally find Bugzilla easier to use, and that iswhat almost everything else uses to track bugs (except few odd projets, like CentOS).
You're the first person I'm hearing that from :)
scnr,
Ralph
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
I've just had a problem on one of my x86_64 boxes with openssl package. I have an 32-bit only application that requires openssl libraries. When I attempted to install openssl.i686 (in addition to already present openssl.x86_64), it failed. The rpm complained about conflicting files (they were all manpages), and I needed to use --force option to install the thing.
The good folks at Red Hat were not able to reproduce it, and I don't have a spare x86_64 box to test it with original RHEL4 myself.
If you have the RHEL packages, compare the results of "rpm -qlp | sort"
For CentOS and RHEL.
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
David Hrbáč -
John Summerfield -
Karanbir Singh -
R P Herrold -
Ralph Angenendt