Troy Dawson a écrit :
> 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. 
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
By my side the problem is corrected, but it can prevent problems for others.

Regards,
--
Yannick Perret
CC-IN2P3