On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:27:59 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > Can %doc files cause a conflict? > > > Yes, this is a common form of multilib conflict, which often arises when > documentation is generated at build time and the doc generator (e.g. gtk-doc > or doxygen) embeds timestamps or some other random data in the generated > docs. > > The easiest fix here is often to use pregenerated docs as separate source > instead of generating the docs at build time. That is a very inconvenient solution, however. > > I assume include files can cause a conflict. > > > Yes, quite a few libraries install config.h-alike headers which naturally > cause conflicts. My mail was phrased poorly. ;) I didn't mean to ask whether include files can differ between one arch and another. Surely they can. E.g. when they contain targetarch-dependent definitions, they can be difficult to fix for multi-lib. I want to ignore conflicting -devel packages as much as possible, since the -devel packages are optional. Having i386 and x86_64 headers installed in parallel is not a hard requirement. Library packages, on the contrary, can be pulled in as dependencies of a multi-compat application or another library. An i386 library (or "main" packages in general) should not conflict with its x86_64 counter-part because of %doc files, data files, or config files, for example. > > I assume arch-independent data files can cause a conflict. > > > Only if they are generated at build time and include timestamps or other > variable data. So, when RPM does not play any multi-lib tricks with files below %_datadir, there are several packages in Extras Devel which conflict because they contain arch-independent files which have different checksums on i386 compared with x86_64. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
