Bug 201837
Summary: | The flex rpm is not suitable for multilib environments | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Howells <dhowells> |
Component: | flex | Assignee: | Petr Machata <pmachata> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 5 | CC: | mnewsome |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-08-10 11:39:51 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
David Howells
2006-08-09 10:24:04 UTC
I have no problems installing both x86_64 and i386 flex packages alongside. Turns out rpm won't overwrite the /usr/bin/flex with the version from i386 package. The libraries are both in place however. [root@prdell ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) [root@prdell ~]# rpm -q --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n' flex flex-2.5.4a-41.fc5.x86_64 flex-2.5.4a-41.fc5.i386 [root@prdell ~]# ls -ls /usr/lib*/libfl* 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2764 Jul 19 06:51 /usr/lib64/libfl.a 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2288 Jul 19 06:49 /usr/lib/libfl.a [root@prdell ~]# rpm -q --whatprovides --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n' /usr/lib/libfl.a flex-2.5.4a-41.fc5.i386 [root@prdell ~]# rpm -q --whatprovides --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n' /usr/lib64/libfl.a flex-2.5.4a-41.fc5.x86_64 The binary is owned by x86_64 package, so it will get removed on rpm -e even when i386 package is still in place, but installing and uninstalling i386 package alongside x86_64 is possible. I don't think it's necessary to have separate package for libfl.a. Is this OK for you? Hmmm... You're right: it does work. Shouldn't the installation raise a complaint? For flex this probably isn't a problem, provided you install the right arch package first. So it's probably okay - at least I can't think of a problem with it just at this moment in time. I believe this is by design of some internal rpm magic. I think it would complain e.g. if the two arches got different FlexLexer.h, or if there was real conflict in library files, but binaries probably get resolved by prioritizing x86_64 files. |