On 05/23/2016 11:42 AM, Heyman, Jerrold wrote: > Howdy, > > > > I have two RPMs, one which is dependent on a library installed by the other. > > Both are 64bit Intel binaries/libraries, and it works just fine if I turn off > dependency checking (--nodeps). > > Obviously this is not something I want as using –nodeps will also cause an > invalid installation if the dependent RPM isn’t there. > > > > rpmA is the full package necessary to execute the command included in rpmA > > rpmB is a debug package, containing a debug (non-stripped) version of the > binary and non-stripped shared library. > > rpmA installs an additional shared library – stripped – that rpmB also needs. > It is this shared library that causes the dependency failure when installing rpmB > > > > [root@heymaj1-test build]# rpm -q --provides rpmA > > RPMA > > librpma.so > > rpmA = 1.0.0.1-000000 > > rpmA(x86-64) = 1.0.0.1-000000 You should also have: librpma.so.()(64bit) listed here. Could be because the execute permission bit is not set for the shared library which is required for the automatic provides generator to work. > > [root@heymaj1-test build]# rpm -U --test rpmB.x86_64.rpm > > error: Failed dependencies: > > librpma.so()(64bit) is needed by rpmB.x86_64 > > > > The library is installed correctly in /opt/emc/productname/lib > > Does that need to be /opt/emc/productname/lib64? No. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxx Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
