On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:52AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > I guess I'm really having trouble coming to grips with multilib, > > because I see that the ocaml modules are not multilib while the -devel > > packages are. In fact, the only ocaml i386 packages I see in current > > rawhide x86_64 are -devel packages of modules. Is something broken > > with the rawhide repo generation, am I just confused as to how you > > could ever install those -devel modules without matching arch versions > > of the non-devel packages, or are we perhaps seeing the problem under > > discussion in action? > > Packages are pulled in as multilib either from being named -devel, > or bevcause they package something obviously determinable as a 'library'. > > I suspect the modules don't appear to be libraries. Is there something wrong with the process that pulls in multilib then? sane-backends-libs-gphoto2 x86_64 repo deps have been broken for a long time due to missing the i386 package in the x86_64 repo. For reference, here are the contents of the two packages: >rpm -qvpl sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.19-7.fc9.x86_64.rpm lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Mar 10 12:53 /usr/lib64/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1 -> libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37248 Mar 10 12:53 /usr/lib64/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19 >rpm -qvpl sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.19-7.fc9.i386.rpm lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Mar 10 12:58 /usr/lib/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1 -> libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 33772 Mar 10 12:58 /usr/lib/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19 -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
