Bug 203771

Summary: yum upgrade glibc fails due to glibc-devel requiring glibc-headers on multiarch
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: John (J5) Palmieri <johnp>
Component: glibcAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fweimer, jkeck
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-08-23 18:27:05 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Description Flags
attached is the output of yum upgrade glibc none

Description John (J5) Palmieri 2006-08-23 17:32:36 UTC
Description of problem:

I think there is a multiarch packaging issue with the glibc-devel.  It needs
glibc-headers but there is only an x86_64 version available yet I have both the
x86_64 and i386 glibc-devel packages installed.  This is a rawhide machine that
was installed before FC-4.  I hadn't updated it in a couple of months.

Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2006-08-23 17:48:18 UTC
On x86_64, you are supposed to have glibc-headers.x86_64 installed and
either just glibc-devel.x86_64 (if you don't want to be able to build 32-bit
programs), or both glibc-devel.x86_64 and glibc-devel.i386.

Are you updating by hand and only specifying some of the glibc subpackages
on the command line, or yum update'ing only certain subpackages explicitly?

Please show the command you were trying and what errors you have been given.

Comment 2 John (J5) Palmieri 2006-08-23 17:57:13 UTC
Created attachment 134736 [details]
attached is the output of yum upgrade glibc

Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2006-08-23 18:27:05 UTC
Either you are looking at inconsistent repository (which contains some 2.4.90-23
and some 2.4.90-10 subpackages), or you chose to upgrade only glibc{,-common}
and not devel etc.
In any case, that's not a glibc packaging bug.