Yannick Perret wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I upgraded some test boxes to the latest SL5x repository in x86_64.
> We install both 32 and 64bit packages, and I get a problem with 
> pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.x86_64:
> after installing this package, the corresponding 32b package 
> (pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.i386) failed to install, complaining about conflicts 
> on manpages files.
> I replaced this package by the same one from our RHEL5x repository in 
> order to test (as some RHEL5x boxes do have both without problems) using 
> a --force, and then I was able to install the 32bit pam package without 
> any error/warning.
> The same problem occurs during upgrade of 3 boxes. When I replaced the 
> pam.x86_64 package on our local repository, the same upgrade script 
> works fine on other boxes (which are identical to the previous ones).
> 
> You may check this particular package to check for some packaging problem.
> I don't see any other similar problem with other packages.
> 

Ugg ... I hate man pages that encode the date they were compiled instead 
of the date they were written.
pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.i386.rpm was compiled on a different day than 
pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.x86_64.rpm
The man page had the date it was compiled written into it.  So since 
they were compiled on different days, their man pages are different, and 
that causes this whole problem.
I thought we'd checked for that.
I'll look into fixing it.
Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LSCS/CSI/USS Group
__________________________________________________