Jeff Spaleta wrote:
"overrides" are not understood by how rpm handles multilib.
Package foo.i386 and package foo.x86_64 both provide a file
/usr/bin/foo-madness.sh
if both the .386 and the x86_64 version of the file are the same then
the i386 and x86_64 packages are allow to co-exist. If the 2 versions
of that file differ, then a conflict is raised.
"overrides" imply an assumed preference and there is no way for rpm to
know that you prefer one version of the file over the other. Which
version of the file is what you intended to have on your system is
situational as intepreted by the local admin.
I understand that it seems to be true that it conflicts on scripts if
they aren't the same, but x86_64 binaries seem to override i386 binaries
if both are installed. I do agree that there could be situtations where
because of dependecies I need both arches of the package, and yet I want
the i386 version of the binary, but that is a preexisting issue.
[root@ws ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/gconftool-2
GConf2-2.10.0-4.i386
GConf2-2.10.0-4.x86_64
[root@ws ~]$ file /usr/bin/gconftool-2
/usr/bin/gconftool-2: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1
(SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.4.0, stripped
Yes the only way forward with this script is to make sure that the
i386 version and the x86_64 version of the script are exactly the
same. The same must also be true of the shared manpage. These are
filable issues to take up with the fedora core mozilla maintainer.
Or let the script be treated as a binary and let the x86_64 version
override the i386 version.
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list