2010/6/30 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:04:51 +0800, Chen wrote: > >> 2010/6/30 Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I'm trying to build a package that has a BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel in >> > Rawhide [1]. I get a message in root.log that libjpeg-turbo-devel >> > obsoletes libjpeg-devel, so yum pulls in libjpeg-turbo-devel instead. >> > Unfortunately, when it pulls in dependencies for my other BuildRequires, >> > it's trying to pull in libjpeg and libjpeg-turbo, and I get a conflict >> > since they both provide libjpeg.so.62.0.0 >> > >> > The only thing I can think of is that one of the packages I'm requiring >> > has an explicit dep on libjpeg (I'm about to investigate which). For >> > the time being, is there any to work around this? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Rich >> > >> > [1]: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2282066 >> > >> > -- >> >> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=607554 > > Why doesn't libjpeg-turbo contain the proper Obsoletes for libjpeg? > > Only libjpeg-turbo-devel does it correctly for libjpeg-devel and > libjpeg-static. > > That's only half of the show. libjpeg-turbo is meant to replace libjpeg, > so it should obsolete it. And if it also added the "Provides", there > would be no need to rebuild dependencies, but considering that this is > Rawhide, okay if it doesn't add the "Provides". > -- libjpeg is split into libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg-turbo-utils, Obsoletes libjpeg is already added to libjpeg-turbo-utils. I don't know why Rich's package failed to build on koji, the problem is a bit weird. Among 5 packages which require libjpeg explicitly, only java-1.6.0-openjdk will be used as a BR, however Rich's packages is irrelevant to java. FYI, provides libjpeg is also add to libjpeg-turbo-utils now, I don't know if it can solve the file conflicts. Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
