On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:39:14 -0700 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 20:03 +1000, Amit Saha wrote: > > So, this library is missing. However, this should have been > > installed as its a dependency, right? > > > > It can be seen that there are two providers listed for libotf.so.0. > > Since 'openmpi' was already installed, so it didn't bother > > installing 'libotf'. I could simulate the scenario on a Fedora 15 > > installation: > > The problem is that openmpi includes a libotf.so.0, but it's not in a > path that the system will usually look in for shared libraries, it's > in (libdir)/openmpi/lib/ . openmpi probably shouldn't have a private > copy of libotf in the first place (assuming that's what it is, and > not just a naming coincidence), but if it's going to have one, it > should have a line in the spec to prevent RPM auto-provides from > giving the openmpi package a Provides for libotf.so.0. It's certainly not the same libotf, since OpenMPI does not have *anything* to do with truetype fonts. Even though the library is installed in a non-system directory, applications that link against libotf will get an automatically generated Requires: against it anyways. Maybe OpenMPI upstream should be contacted and asked to rename their libotf. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
