On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 18:31 +0530, Rahul wrote: > tomhorsley@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > I got conflicts last night that were complaining about some library being > > needed by gnopernicus, so I did an rpm -q gnopernicus and found I had > > two gnopernicus rpms installed, > > Can you post the exact error? It was just the same old error I always get on at least one thing every update because a new library has shown up in the updates but something installed needs the old library to still exist. The specific gnopernicus error seems to be gone today, but here are a couple of new ones just like it :-) Missing Dependency: libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit) is needed by package gnucash Missing Dependency: libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.120)(64bit) is needed by package systemtap > > Or is it really legitimate to have two conflicting rpms like this? > > > > Yes. RPM multi arch support works that way. I guess I really really don't understand multi arch rpms then. For instance, the --list info for both the gnopernicus rpms claims they own the files: /usr/bin/gnopernicus /usr/bin/gnopernicus-mag-config /usr/bin/srcore yet the installed files are in fact ELF 64-bit executables, which seem unlikely to be packaed in an i386 rpm :-). Is there some doc somewhere that clarifies this multi arch stuff so I can perhaps reduce my confusion? -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list