Re: rawhide vs. protected multilib versions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 16:13 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:

> 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?

So, at least on my F17 machine, gcc looks like this:

black-lotus:~% rpm -q --requires gcc | grep gomp
libgomp = 4.7.0-1.fc17
libgomp.so.1()(64bit)  

To me that looks like enough information that yum should be able to
figure it out without explicit handholding.  I'd really call this a yum
bug.

- ajax

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux