On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 04:13:22PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 18:56 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: > > Just received: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528237 > > > > yum install libotf-devel.i586 libotf-devel.x86_64 > > > > yields: > > > > Transaction Check Error: > > file /usr/bin/libotf-config from install of libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.i586 > > conflicts with file from package libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.x86_64 > > file /usr/share/doc/libotf-devel-0.9.8/example/Makefile from install of > > libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.i586 conflicts with file from package > > libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.x86_64 > > > > What is the recommended way to resolve this? > > It's not to be considered a bug, AFAIK. We don't stipulate that > development packages be installable side-by-side in this way, we only > stipulate that for library packages where there's a need for it. There's > no particular use case where you absolutely need both -devel packages > installed at once. > I believe this is incorrect. devel packages are supposed to be multilib installable. There's two things that are two files that conflict above and there's two different fixes for each. /usr/bin/libotf-config -- This is a script or binary for the user to run. It likely has different library paths depending on whether we're installing on x86_64 or i386. One of the better ways to fix this is to make libotf-config into a wrapper around pkg-config and then send the modifications to upstream. pkg-config stores the data filesabout each library in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig so it's multilib safe. If upstream doesn't want that or the libotf-config script has very different ideas of what information it needs to give out than pkg-config, renaming the binary to libotf-config32 and libotf-config64 is another method. However, this has the drawback of requiring patches to code which invokes libotf-config in other packages. The pkg-config wrapper is greatly prefered. Makefile -- You'll have to download the two packages and check what's changed in the Makefile. Perhaps it's hardcoding the installed library path needlessly or youcanuse pkg-config/libotf-config to make the Makefile the same onall arches. If you get stuck you can post the diff of the Makefiles here and we can help more. There are some methods of working around these issues here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpfaHTt56wpu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
