On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 08:05 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > # rpm --qf="%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n"
> > -qf /usr/share/doc/device-mapper-1.02.28/README
> > device-mapper-1.02.28-2.el5.i386
> > device-mapper-1.02.28-2.el5.x86_64
>
> That's not a correct example.
>
> The above example is of multilib files, not of conflicting files.
It's not supposed to be an example of conflicting files. It's an example
of a documentation file installed by two different packages that does
_not_ conflict, as that's what Michael was talking about:
"similarly with 64 bit systems, where you need to install 32bit
compatability software, they usually conflict, due to irrelevant
documentation files conflicting."
But the documentation files don't usually conflict because RPM handles
them as above. If the files had different content then there would be a
conflict but that is not normally the case with multilib as Michael had
claimed.
That's the point I was trying to make - that identical files installed
to the same path by two different package do not conflict.
> rpm does track conflicts and it does keep you from installing if you have
> actually conflicting files.
But in this case there is no conflict.
Regards,
Bryn.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
