Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 14:40 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
>> a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
>> Worked like a charm.
>>
>> However, now that I try to use the resulting system and need a
>> few packages, I find that installing them is um, ... challenging.
>>
>> For example, yesterday I couldn't even install gcc due to this:
>>
>> Error: Protected multilib versions: \
>> libgomp-4.7.0-0.20.fc17.i686 != \
>> libgomp-4.7.0-1.fc17.x86_64
>
> I believe it needs a patch like this to the spec:
>
> There may be other subpackages that need patching here too; I didn't
> have a chance to test the patch yet. Tried running it by Jakub but
> he was away.
...
> Subject: [PATCH] Use isa for libgomp
>
> Fixes multilib versioning issues.
> ---
> gcc.spec | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc.spec b/gcc.spec
> index fc7e476..1928326 100644
> --- a/gcc.spec
> +++ b/gcc.spec
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ Requires: glibc-devel >= 2.2.90-12
> Requires: glibc >= 2.3.90-35
> %endif
> Requires: libgcc >= %{version}-%{release}
> -Requires: libgomp = %{version}-%{release}
> +Requires: libgomp%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Thanks.
Can anyone explain why appending that %{?_isa} notation is necessary?
Shouldn't dependency-tracking tools already know that libgomp is
an arch-dependent binary, and that of course if gcc.x86_64 is depending
on libgomp, it really wants the x86_64 version and not the i686 one,
at least by default?
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
