[ATrpms-users] Conflict between fedora and atrpms version of lm_sensors

[Jeffrey J. Kosowsky]

Axel Thimm wrote at about 21:20:46 +0200 on Sunday, December 16, 2007:
 > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 04:43:06AM -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
 > > While I use atrpms for a lot of extras not found in fedora proper,
 > > I prefer to stick with the fedora version when atrpms has a parallel
 > > version of an existing rpm.
 > > 
 > > An example is lm_sensors and sensord.
 > > However, with the fedora version of lm_sensors
 > > (lm_sensors-2.10.5-1.fc8.i386.rpm) and sensord
 > > (lm_sensors-sensord-2.10.5-1.fc8.i386.rpm) installed, I get the
 > > following error when running 'yum update':
 > > 
 > > Error: Missing Dependency: lm_sensors = 2.10.5-52.fc8 is needed by
 > > package sensord
 > 
 > Probably a side-effect (bug) of the protectbase plugin or similar. If
 > some filtering decides to remove something from the pool of available
 > packages it should do so with the depending on it packages as well. If
 > this si not done you get the bug you observe.
 > 
 > Not that even a perfect implementation of a filtering mechanism (like
 > smart has) would really solve partial/selective enabling of repos. But
 > that's another story.
 > 
 > > The problem seems to be that yum is trying to upgrade me to the atrpms
 > > version of lm_sensors and sensord. Probably, compounding this is that
 > > fedora calls the sensord package "lm_sensors-sensord" while atrpms
 > > calls it "sensord".
 > > 
 > > So, basically, I have the following three questions:
 > > 1. How do I get yum to allow upgrades of lm_sensors when the upgrade
 > >    comes from the same repo as the original (i.e., fedora) but not if it
 > >    comes from a different repo (e.g., atrpms)?
 > > 
 > > 2. Why does atrpms have a different name for the essentially
 > >    equivalent sensord package from what fedora now calls it?
 > 
 > Because ATrpms has been shipping sensord since more than 5 years and
 > the Fedora maintainer only did so some few days or weeks ago w/o
 > checking for existing implementations. :(
 > 
 > > 3. What is causing the specific error and how do I prevent it? (other
 > >    than manually uninstalling lm_sensors/lm_sensors-sensord and then
 > >    installing the atrpms version?
 > 
 > I'd file a bug against bugzilla.redhat.com. The maintainer is not
 > forced to use any given conventions (although that would had been
 > nice), but at least he/she could Provide/Obsolete the sensord package
 > in a versioned way to avoind a choking yum.
 > -- 
 > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
 > 

I filed the bug as you suggested and have had several exchanges with
the maintainer (which I hope you have been copied on).

I have discovered that this is (unfortunately) complicated by "political"
issue between Fedora and ATrpms philosophies regarding naming
conventions, numbering conventions, and the pros/cons of duplicating
fedora system rpms functionality.

The bottom line though seems to be that the ATrpms sensord has a line
in its spec file OBSOLETING lm_sensors-sensord which IMHO is not
playing nicely.

The net effect of this line seems to be that anyone who wants to use
sensord functionality and has the ATrpms repo enabled is more-or-less
forced to either use the ATrpms version or manually "exclude" sensord
every time yum is run.

So in terms of the principle of "first do no harm", it would seem that
the fairest approach would be to remove the line 
"Obsoletes: lm_sensors-sensord" from the sensord spec file."

Of course, I am equally open to other suggestions but it seems like
the Fedora maintainer feels pretty strongly that this is an ATrpms
issue to fix.