On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 06:43:35PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Note that rpm < 4.6.0 did behave differently here: packages with
> conflicting files were allowed to be installed in the same transaction but
> not if installed separately, leading to strange situations. So if there's
> a chance you've tested on RHEL/Centos at some point, that could explain it
> as it'd then be just a matter of which order the packages got installed
> in.
That could well explain why we've only seen this reported on EPEL 5.
I thought it was a coincidence, but looks like it could be the older
RPM version there.
Okay, if it has only been seen on EPEL then no need to look further. IIRC
it got fixed in RHEL 5 too, 5.3 or thereabouts.
- Panu -