Hey,
apparently some ELF files are identical between Fedora's pypy3.7-libs and
pypy3.8-libs packages.
On Fedora 34, this leads to installation conflict:
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib/.build-id/39/208b4f57aa4d5cfcbed13cf6c5ec428de27264 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/40/682aae1fc61eaa03230eac9033407ce96488c9 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/53/96df0ea06a9dd7e8eeea66aaa65dda9b64e73c from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/87/535f93c815a75349f4d56210c31d4ef4b797f2 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/c6/bff4486941a2fb3490a80eb7b7bfe3370e8ba0 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/c9/e94d839699198b0e87c334f8e03160fec054de from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/e4/a09cf0647ed5d0e730dcdfef7aff9f9a2e11a0 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/e8/1db0d87e7cce4f5fcad18063f7b7fce2eb9590 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
file /usr/lib/.build-id/ee/d5ab1faa168044b871001c4117fc8b7853b3c6 from
install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
As reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2053880
I've read all the previous discussion about this on Fedora devel list, but I
still have no idea what should I do to prevent this conflict.
Moving the files to a common component seems like a bad idea given it's not
"two packages bundle the same thing" but rather "two packages built in a
different way".
I see this:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/rpm-4.16.1.3/macros.in#L177
%{?_unique_build_ids:--build-id-seed "%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}"}
I suppose I could pass in %{NAME} as well, right?
What are the side effects for changing the seed like this?:
%global __debug_install_post \
%{lua:print(rpm.expand('%__debug_install_post'):gsub('%-%-build%-id%-seed%s+"',
rpm.expand('--build-id-seed "%{NAME}-')))}
Actually, should RPM pass %{NAME} by default? Or at least have a macro I could
redefine in a less cryptic and fragile way?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
