On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:54:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:15:36PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Second run, trying to eliminate some harmless positives automatically... > > > > Trouble ahead: > > > > lam-libs provides libmpi.so.0 > > required by: ScientificPython - 2.6-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: R-RScaLAPACK - 0.5.1-9.fc7.i386 > > required by: blacs - 1.1-24.fc7.1.i386 > > required by: lam - 2:7.1.2-10.fc7.i386 > > required by: lam-devel - 2:7.1.2-10.fc7.i386 > > required by: openmpi - 1.1-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: openmpi-devel - 1.1-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: openmpi-libs - 1.1-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: scalapack - 1.7.5-1.fc7.i386 > > required by: tachyon-lam - 0.97-4.fc7.i386 > > required by: tachyon-lam-gl - 0.97-4.fc7.i386 > > openmpi-libs provides libmpi.so.0 > > required by: ScientificPython - 2.6-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: R-RScaLAPACK - 0.5.1-9.fc7.i386 > > required by: blacs - 1.1-24.fc7.1.i386 > > required by: lam - 2:7.1.2-10.fc7.i386 > > required by: lam-devel - 2:7.1.2-10.fc7.i386 > > required by: lam-libs - 2:7.1.2-10.fc7.i386 > > required by: openmpi - 1.1-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: openmpi-devel - 1.1-8.fc7.i386 > > required by: scalapack - 1.7.5-1.fc7.i386 > > required by: tachyon-lam - 0.97-4.fc7.i386 > > required by: tachyon-lam-gl - 0.97-4.fc7.i386 > > > > Both packages store libmpi.so.0 in a private path, /usr/lib/lam/ and > > /usr/lib/openmpi/ respectively. Still there are other packages which > > require libmpi.so.0 => there are bad dependencies here. > > Can you explain what are bad dependencies here? No, because both packages install ld.so conf via %post scriptlets and the alternatives system. That is not something a first version of a checker-script would detect. ;) -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
