Bug 589948

As far as yum is concerned, the dependency for gtk2-devel.i686 is fulfilled if glib2-devel.x86_64 is installed because the package only says:

Requires: glib2-devel >= %{glib2_version}

So yum is working here as expected.

The packager could use architecture-specific dependencies though:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/ArchDependencies

I'm reassigning to gtk2 for consideration. But I suppose there's a LOT of packages with the same issue.

I'm not going to touch this until we get package guideline additions.

I think this subject is up for discussion this week
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires


http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2010-May/007041.html

Just FMI ... Why not? What is the harm in adding the %{_isa} to the requires?

Do you think there's another solution?

Every single package in Fedora with explicit library dependencies has this issue. I'd rather not deal with it on a per-package basis and then revisit it when the packaging committee comes around to dealing with this.

I think it's a failure not of the packager but of the running system if it does not know that Requires: foo does not mean foo.same-arch or foo.noarch in at least 99.9% of the cases. So putting the blame on the packager is a bit counter-intuitive to me.

FWIW, when removing glibc.i686 yum uninstalled all my i686 packages, even though according to your logic at least the devel packages should have been happy to stay?

(In reply to comment #6)
> I think it's a failure not of the packager but of the running system if it does
> not know that Requires: foo does not mean foo.same-arch or foo.noarch in at
> least 99.9% of the cases. So putting the blame on the packager is a bit
> counter-intuitive to me.

What do you propose instead? Interpreting every "Requires: package" in a spec file as really meaning "Requires: package.%{_isa}" ? And then having a new special syntax for arch-independent Requires?

> FWIW, when removing glibc.i686 yum uninstalled all my i686 packages, even
> though according to your logic at least the devel packages should have been
> happy to stay?    

Both gtk2-devel.i686 and glib2-devel.i686 require "libc.so.6", which is provided only by glibc.i686. I see no inconsistency in my logic.

(In reply to comment #7)
> What do you propose instead? Interpreting every "Requires: package" in a spec
> file as really meaning "Requires: package.%{_isa}" ? And then having a new
> special syntax for arch-independent Requires?
> 
I'm not a guru packager yet, so I don't know of any side effects that might have, but from intuitoon I'd expect a "Requires: package" to mean "Requires: package.%{_isa}" or "Requires: package.noarch".
If a x86_64 package requires an i686 package explicitly, I'd expect that package to use "Requires: other-package.i686" explicitly.

> Both gtk2-devel.i686 and glib2-devel.i686 require "libc.so.6", which is
> provided only by glibc.i686. I see no inconsistency in my logic.    
>
Ah. I always thought devel packages don't require any so. That explains it.

This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 13.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '13'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 13's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Fedora 13 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2011-06-25. Fedora 13 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.