Troy Dawson a écrit :
Yannick Perret wrote:
Hello,
I upgraded some test boxes to the latest SL5x repository in x86_64.
We install both 32 and 64bit packages, and I get a problem with
pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.x86_64:
after installing this package, the corresponding 32b package
(pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.i386) failed to install, complaining about
conflicts on manpages files.
I replaced this package by the same one from our RHEL5x repository in
order to test (as some RHEL5x boxes do have both without problems)
using a --force, and then I was able to install the 32bit pam package
without any error/warning.
The same problem occurs during upgrade of 3 boxes. When I replaced
the pam.x86_64 package on our local repository, the same upgrade
script works fine on other boxes (which are identical to the previous
ones).
You may check this particular package to check for some packaging
problem.
I don't see any other similar problem with other packages.
Ugg ... I hate man pages that encode the date they were compiled
instead of the date they were written.
pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.i386.rpm was compiled on a different day than
pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.x86_64.rpm
The man page had the date it was compiled written into it. So since
they were compiled on different days, their man pages are different,
and that causes this whole problem.
I thought we'd checked for that.
I'll look into fixing it.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
By my side the problem is corrected, but it can prevent problems for others.
Regards,
--
Yannick Perret
CC-IN2P3
