Bug 168820
| Summary: | File conflicts between 32bit and 64bit packages | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Phil Knirsch <pknirsch> |
| Component: | sane-backends | Assignee: | Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | rvokal |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-09-15 14:23:23 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Phil Knirsch
2005-09-20 15:02:34 UTC
It seems we're running into problems with generated documentation... I can't think of another reasoni right now why these files would conflict (as RPM allows files with the same content belonging to different packages, at least it did the last time I looked at it). I don't think we can leave out docs in either the 32bit or 64bit version of the package, putting them in $arch/ subdirectories is needless (they should contain the same content at least as the reader is concerned) and a bit of overkill. The only idea I have would be to split them out into a separate docs package but that would be a gross workaround. Any other ideas? IMO in the long run, RPM should not conflict on documentation and silently install the higher arch version (x86_64) over the lower arch one. Good point about conflicting documentation. And right of my head i don't have any good idea either how to fix it now. Read ya, Phil FC5 Update has a docs package now, FC6 has a separate libs package which includes these generated docs. |