Messy Update....

Adam Tkac atkac at
Thu Jul 19 13:03:00 UTC 2007

Steve Dickson napsal(a):
> 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
>> I believe that rpm triggers should help you 
>> ( 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.
So looks like you have to use Conflicts directive in specfile (same as 
in nfs-utils use for example Conflicts: nfs-utils-lib < 1.0.8-9
in nfs-utils-lib use Conflicts: nfs-utils < 1.1.0-1)

This cause that packages have to be updated simulateously. If this still 
doesn't help I don't have any next ideas :(
>> But I recommend you test improved script before you make final build :)
> Is there such an thing as a "final" build?? 8-)
I call version which is generally avaliable as "final" :)


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list