-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/15/2009 09:37 PM, Arthur G wrote: > Hi anyonewhocanhelp, > > Just curious, is libc now an explicit dependency or should I buy a sense of humour? > > broken dependencies in the development tree: > On ppc: > xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) > xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6 > ....etc > > Regs, Arthur. > You are not alone, I receives the same broken dependencies for PPC and PPC64. I wonder if migration for both architecture as "second class" has occurred in a process. - -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic & Web Designer E: luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx W: http://www.thefinalzone.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksBDfwACgkQaS6HaNQHFTn31wCePwWtki4IJHQuv0vc2HfPe5nF V9kAn1O+pGsbFb5w3QD4KawQwgBfHu0S =Ojqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
