Bug 510098

Summary:	Libxcb-devel.x86_64 depends on i586 packages
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Martin Kho <rh-bugzilla>
Component:	libxcb	Assignee:	Adam Jackson <ajax>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	ajax, rdieter
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:	2009-07-07 17:46:09 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 Martin Kho 2009-07-07 16:53:05 UTC

Description of problem:
libxcb-devel depends on:
* glibc.i686
* libXau.i586
* libxcb.i586
* nss-softokn-freebl.i586

This looks not right.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libxcb-devel.1.2-3.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)

How reproducible:
On a x86_64 system run: yum install libxcb-devel

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:
Transaction Check Error:
package libxcb-1.2-4.fc11.x86_64 (which is newer than libxcb-1.2-3.fc11.i586) is already installed

Expected results:
libxcb-devel.x86_64 installed

Additional info:

Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2009-07-07 17:46:09 UTC

This is false, though the deps could be tightened using %_isa

For you, since you have multilib'd libxcb installed already, 
yum install libxcb.i586 libxcb.x86_64 libxcb-devel
will (likely) work better (since you have an older libxcb.i586 installed).

Comment 2 Martin Kho 2009-07-07 18:13:10 UTC

Hi Rex,

See also my response on bug #510088. I've no i586 packages.

Any suggestions?

Regards,

Martin Kho

Comment 3 Martin Kho 2009-07-07 18:25:42 UTC

Hi,

On my system is libxcb-1.2-4.fc11.x86_64 installed and yum 'wants' to install libxcb-devel-1.2-3.fc11.x86_64. An older devel version?

Martin Kho

Comment 4 Rex Dieter 2009-07-07 18:42:40 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 510088 ***