Bug 238742
Summary: | Missing 64bit ltrace on Fedora for PPC64 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | IBM Bug Proxy <bugproxy> |
Component: | ltrace | Assignee: | Petr Machata <pmachata> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dcantrell, dwmw2, 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: | 2007-05-17 16:04:46 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 150226 |
Description
IBM Bug Proxy
2007-05-02 18:48:46 UTC
Why is it you need the ppc64 version of this package? We're considering removing _all_ 64 bit packages from the spin except kernel, systemtap, and perhaps glibc. David, what are your thoughts on this? It's one of the few packages which make sense in the 64-bit version, if you actually want to trace 64-bit software. It's amusing that the few packages we _do_ want 64-bit are the packages we weren't shipping :) I assume we're not talking about removing 64-bit packages from the spin for F7 at this stage -- that's an F8 thing. F7 is in good shape for release, now that we're preferring 32-bit in both yum and rpm (although anaconda still needs to set _prefer_color 1 for _upgrades_). Post-F7, yes we'll probably drop most 64-bit stuff and let users pick it up from the ppc64 repo _if_ they want it. But kernel,systemtap,gdb,ltrace,strace are the packages most likely to be kept in the core 'ppc' repo. In the short term, adding ltrace.ppc64 to the compose is a sensible request. Are we still missing strace64.ppc64 too? changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Owning Team|Red Hat |LTC Internal Support ------- Additional Comments From dmfaria.com 2007-05-02 16:43 EDT ------- - We need the 64 bits ltrace to trace 64-bit software. It will be run over a ppc64 architecture machine. -64 bits strace is also missing, dwmw2. ----- Additional Comments From brenohl.com 2007-05-03 13:51 EDT ------- Hi Jesse, Based on the latest comment do you think that these package has chance be included? Thanks Breno Yes, I'm marking this an F7 blocker so to remember it. changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |FIXEDAWAITINGTEST Resolution| |FIX_ALREADY_AVAIL ------- Additional Comments From brenohl.com 2007-05-03 14:28 EDT ------- Jesse, Thanks a lot. Rawhide now has ltrace/strace as multilib. changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |35267 Status|ACCEPTED |REOPENED Resolution|FIX_ALREADY_AVAIL | ------- Additional Comments From dmfaria.com 2007-06-06 15:57 EDT ------- This bug depends on 35267. Now F7GA has the 64-bit ltrace in its repositories. When you do a fedora installation or a yum install ltrace it installs ltrace 64-bits and then installs ltrace 32-bits over it. One workaround is to do yum remove ltrace and then yum install ltrace.ppc64, then you will only have the 64-bit version installed. Yes, that's a known problem with the way we handle multilib and let one set of binaries just override another. Once we fix that and ban the file conflicts, this kind of thing won't happen. We'll probably want a 'ltrace64' package, like our 'strace64' package. Ideally, ltrace (and strace) would just be fixed so that one version works for both. ------- Comment From mlui.com 2007-12-12 15:59 EDT------- Daniel, is this fixed in F8? |