|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | [Build 57.1] openQA test fails in zypper_migration: file conflict between libopenssl-1_1-devel-1.1.1w-150600.1.4.x86_64 and 'libopenssl-devel > 1.1.1w' | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] PUBLIC SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP6 | Reporter: | Chenzi Cao <chcao> |
| Component: | Basesystem | Assignee: | Lukas Kucharczyk <lukas.kucharczyk> |
| Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P1 - Urgent | CC: | eugenio.paolantonio, jcheung, lukas.kucharczyk, meissner, otto.hollmann, pmonrealgonzalez, swayammitra.tripathy, taroth |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| URL: | https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13549589/modules/zypper_migration/steps/7 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | openQA | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | Yes | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Attachments: | zypper.log | ||
|
Description
Chenzi Cao
2024-02-20 04:37:49 UTC
Zypper is trying to install devel files of both versions. > libopenssl-1_1-devel-1.1.1w-150600.1.4.x86_64 > libopenssl-devel-3.1.4-150600.1.3.noarch But that is intentionally not possible. I think the solution might be to add > Obsoletes: libopenssl-1_1-devel to openssl-3 devel package. We did it for older versions: > %package -n libopenssl-3-devel > ... > # Needed for clean upgrade from former openssl-1_1_0, boo#1081335 > Obsoletes: libopenssl-1_1_0-devel > # Needed for clean upgrade from SLE-12 openssl-1_0_0, bsc#1158499 > Obsoletes: libopenssl-1_0_0-devel i would not add Obsoletes ... I would ask customers to select the "deinstall libopenssl1_1-devel" option somehow. The devel files for the different openssl packages are in conflict and this was done on purpose. The Obsoletes mentioned in comment#1 were added to fix this in previous migrations, see this for openssl-1_0_0 and openssl-1_1 in bsc#1081335 and bsc#1158499. @Marcus, could we use the Obsoletes approach also for openssl-3? In tumbleweed we did not do that, we asked folks to do it manually. I am kind of undecided. (In reply to Marcus Meissner from comment #4) > In tumbleweed we did not do that, we asked folks to do it manually. > > I am kind of undecided. Right, thanks Marcus. @chcao, could we apply what Marcus suggested? TIA (In reply to Pedro Monreal Gonzalez from comment #5) > (In reply to Marcus Meissner from comment #4) > > In tumbleweed we did not do that, we asked folks to do it manually. > > > > I am kind of undecided. > > Right, thanks Marcus. > > @chcao, could we apply what Marcus suggested? TIA Yes, it's fine for me. My initial idea/proposal was different, but I have no problem with Marcus's suggestion, let's do it this way. So can this bug be closed? Or do we need to write a TID or documente it somewhere? (In reply to Otto Hollmann from comment #7) > My initial idea/proposal was different, but I have no problem with Marcus's > suggestion, let's do it this way. > > So can this bug be closed? Or do we need to write a TID or documente it > somewhere? I think it's better to document it somewhere, but I don't where to do it. @Marcus, where do you think it would be better to document this? TIA I'm assigning this bug to Otto. I think release notes is the best place. https://jira.suse.com/browse/PED-6571 is the releasenotes jira ticket. We can add some sentences there for the openssl-3 transition perhaps. Adding Tanja and Lukash Please indicate the current expectation for fixing the bug using the Target Milestone field. What do we believe is possible? In the cases where we do not plan to deliver or cannot guess (!?) please do not enter anything, but you can comment if you wish to provide more details. Verify here, thanks. |