On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
I bet it is not wrong. the i386 packages probably provide what was
required. They just provide it sub-optimally.
But that's really the problem: yum (*) tries to resolve conflicting
requirements (of the A requires C = 1.2.3 and B requires C = 2.3.4 type) by
installing C.x86_64 = 2.3.4 and C.i386 = 1.2.3. This obviously can't work
(it will in almost all cases lead to file conflicts, and it is almost
certainly not what the user wants). I think there needs to be some
restriction that C.x86_64 and C.i386 need to be of the same EVR.
1. There's no way to know in advance that the above will be in conflict at
all. And for every case where it is most likely to be so I'm positive I
can (or have) find a situation where it is the opposite.
2. the better solution is %{_isa} being added to all deps/provides for any
pkg which COULD become a multilib pkg.
(*) (and other depsolvers too, I've seen apt-rpm do it too, but let's focus
on yum here)
all depsolvers have a problem when the dependency/provide information is
ambiguous.
(And sorry for the previous incomplete message, I accidentally hit
Ctrl+Enter and KNode sends the message immediately if I hit that.)
then I'm sorry about the cranky response to that message. I thought that
was all of the message and you were being flippant.
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
