Bug 341561

Summary:	multiarch conflicts in ImageMagick
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Bill Nottingham <notting>
Component:	ImageMagick	Assignee:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	nmurray, rvokal
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:	2008-04-27 14:31:50 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 Bill Nottingham 2007-10-19 21:40:49 UTC

ImageMagick (or one of its subpacakges) has multiarch conflicts when installed for both i386 and x86_64 in the Fedora development tree. For help in resolving them, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks. 

  file /usr/bin/Magick++-config from install of ImageMagick-c++-devel-6.3.5.9-1.fc8 conflicts with file from package ImageMagick-c++-devel-6.3.5.9-1.fc8
  file /usr/include/wand/wand-config.h from install of ImageMagick-devel-6.3.5.9-1.fc8 conflicts with file from package ImageMagick-devel-6.3.5.9-1.fc8

(Note that this is an automated bug filing.)
It would be nice to have these bugs fixed by the beta of Fedora 9.

Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2008-04-27 14:31:50 UTC

Short intro: I'm a new co-maintainer of ImageMagick and as such I'm going
through all open ImageMagick bugs.

6.4.0.10-1, fixes this and will show up in rawhide once rawhide unfreezes from
the current F-9 final freeze.

Comment 2 Ed Hill 2008-06-24 22:01:26 UTC

Is there any chance this fix will be applied to the ImageMagick-devel shipped 
in F8 and/or F9 ?  I'm just curious since I ran into this problem on a few F8 
x86_64 machines.

Thank you!

Comment 3 Hans de Goede 2008-06-25 08:19:49 UTC

The rawhide and F-9 versions are unfortunately not in sync due to an ABI change
in the latest F-9. Backporting the multilib fixes to F-9 is doable (and not very
hard). But will take some effort and I'm afraid I currently do not have the time
todo this. Therefor given the small impact of this issue (and only for
developers) currently there are no plans to backport this to F-9 or earlier.