Messy Update....

[Steve Dickson]

Adam Tkac wrote:
> Steve Dickson napsal(a):
>> I'm looking for a little help with a potential messy update.
>>
>> Basically, a configuration file is been moved from one package
>> to another, dependent, package. So if the package that contains
>> the old config file is not completely removed when the package
>> with the new config file is installed, there will be file
>> conflict....
>>
>> Now here is the context
>>
>> nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-9 moving to nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-10
>> nfs-utils-1.0.10-7 moving to nfs-utils-1.1.0-1
>>
>> nfs-utils depends on nfs-utils-lib
>>
>> nfs-utils-1.0.10-7 contains the obsolete config file
>> nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-9 contains the new config file
>>
>> So when nfs-utils-lib upgraded there a file confliction
>> because the file already exists in nfs-utils-1.0.10-7.
>>
>> Now if you force install nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-10 or
>> remove nfs-utils then install nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-10
>> then things work...
>>
>> So is there some rpm spec file magic I can to make
>> this work? Is there a way to remove a package for
>> another one is installed? Are force upgrades an option?
>>
>> tia,
>>
>> steved.
>>
>> -- 
>> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
>> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
> I believe that rpm triggers should help you 
> (http://archive.rpm.org/support/RPM-Changes-6.html). You could try 
> something like this in new version of nfs-utils-lib:
> 
> %triggerin -- nfs-utils <= 1.0.10-7
> rm -f _configfile_
Good idea... but.. if I remove/rename the config file, by hand,
before the nfs-utils upgrade, it still complains about the
file confliction. I guess RPM has some time of file registry
for each package.

> 
> But I recommend you test improved script before you make final build :)
Is there such an thing as a "final" build?? 8-)

steved.