Bug 1095444

Summary: Odd multilib differences gpm-libs i686 vs x86_64
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Pat Riehecky <riehecky>
Component: gpmAssignee: Jiri Kucera <jkucera>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Vaclav Danek <vdanek>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 7.0CC: csieh, dickey, djez, dmach, misterbonnie, ovasik, toracat, vdanek
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: EasyFix, FastFix
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: gpm-1.20.7-6.el7 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-08-06 13:12:30 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:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1465906    

Description Pat Riehecky 2014-05-07 17:58:33 UTC
Description of problem: The i686 gpm-libs requires the ncurses libraries, however the x86_64 gpm-libs does not.

Was this deliberate?


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):gpm-1.20.7-5.el7


How reproducible:100%


Steps to Reproduce:
1.rpm -qp --requires gpm-libs-1.20.7-5.el7.i686.rpm
2.rpm -qp --requires gpm-libs-1.20.7-5.el7.x86_64.rpm
3.

Actual results:
i686 needs ncurses libraries whereas x86_64 does not

Expected results:
i686 and x86_64 would have similar required libraries.

Additional info:

Comment 3 Jaromír Cápík 2015-07-31 18:36:41 UTC
Hello Pat.

There are more differences for some reason ...

i686
-----
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libncurses.so.5
libtinfo.so.5
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1


x86_64
-------
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

Comment 4 Jaromír Cápík 2015-07-31 18:49:03 UTC
Hmmm ... something definitely smells here. The following is taken from my local backup of gpm-libs-1.20.7-3.el7.x86_64.rpm:

/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

As you see, the ncurses and tinfo are present. And since that only mass rebuilds were done by Dan Mach.
Maybe the RPM require generator is broken for some reason.

Comment 5 Jaromír Cápík 2015-07-31 18:53:32 UTC
The 5th release of the gpm lib really isn't linked against libncurses and libtinfo for some reason.

Comment 6 Jaromír Cápík 2015-07-31 19:11:38 UTC
It's really really really really strange. There's something rotten in the configuration logic. From now I need to explicitly enable ncurses with the --with-curses switch in order to get the libncurses and libtinfo linked in. I'm pretty sure it never required that and there was no change in the gpm sources since 1.20.7-3.el7.

Comment 8 Thomas E. Dickey 2018-10-20 16:10:31 UTC
Linking ncurses into gpm libraries has always been a nuisance, and has
been an FAQ for a long time - see

https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html#using_gpm_lib

(perhaps someone read the FAQ).

Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2019-08-06 13:12:30 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:2278