On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:26 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:40:10 -0400, > seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:33 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > While playing with custom repos I noticed that libgcj-devel requires a > > > file from zlib-devel that isn't explicitly provided. In a mixed x86_86 / i386 > > > environmentment this requires looking at the file lists to see that > > > libgcj-devel-4.3.2-4.i386 needs zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386 and that > > > zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.x86_64 isn't good enough. > > > > > > I am not sure if this is actually a bug though and if so, which package > > > is at fault. I was hoping to get some guidance here on whether or not > > > this is something I should bugzilla. > > > > I think that file dep is explicit - b/c libgcj-devel-4.3.2-4.i386 needs > > the i386 version of that package - not the x86_64. > > It requires a specific lib file that is different between the i386 and x86_64 > versions of zlib-devel. However the different files are not "provide"d by > either zlib so you can't find the dependceny without using the file lists. > > There are over 700 -devel rpms in Fedora where the i386 version of the > package doesn't "provide" anything not "provide"d by the x86_64 version. > presumably most of these put their libs in different places and they > get pulled in because yum (or whatever) ends up looking through the file > lists. > Yes - that's a file dep - that's how they work. I'm not a big fan of them, either. If you'd like to lead a crusade to get rid of them I'll happily follow but seeing as I've tried it twice I'm not going to lead another one :) -sv -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
