Bug 1036328

Summary: Should mesa-vdpau-drivers be multilib?
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Chris Adams <linux>
Component: mashAssignee: Dennis Gilmore <dennis>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 20CC: ajax, dennis, ignatenko, linux, rvokal
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-05-09 18:57:14 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Chris Adams 2013-12-01 01:31:07 UTC
Shouldn't the mesa-vdpau-drivers RPM be multilib?  In other words, shouldn't you be able to install the i686 RPM on x86_64 (for 32 bit binaries)?

Comment 1 Adam Jackson 2013-12-09 16:08:06 UTC
Yes.  Is it not?

Comment 2 Chris Adams 2013-12-09 16:19:38 UTC
Nope, not in the repos.  You can take the i686 RPM and install it on x86_64 just fine, but it is not in the x86_64 repo.  For example:

disk:7:/srv/mirror/pub/fedora/linux/development/20/x86_64/os/Packages/m$ ls mesa*drivers*
mesa-dri-drivers-9.2.3-1.20131114.fc20.i686.rpm
mesa-dri-drivers-9.2.3-1.20131114.fc20.x86_64.rpm
mesa-vdpau-drivers-9.2.3-1.20131114.fc20.x86_64.rpm

DRI drivers have both, but VDPAU do not.

Comment 3 Adam Jackson 2013-12-09 17:28:20 UTC
That still isn't something I can fix from within the package, afaik.

Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2013-12-09 17:36:05 UTC
Fix added to upstream git master.

Comment 5 Chris Adams 2014-05-09 18:57:14 UTC
This is fixed in the published trees.