Bug 530944

Summary: libXxf86dga-devel conflicts with xorg-x11-proto-devel
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Paul Bolle <pebolle>
Component: libXxf86dgaAssignee: Søren Sandmann Pedersen <sandmann>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: kem, sandmann
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: 2009-10-26 11:42:19 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 Paul Bolle 2009-10-26 08:33:50 UTC 
Description of problem:
libXxf86dga-devel-1.0.99.1-1.fc12.i686 conflicts with xorg-x11-proto-devel-7.4-34.fc12.noarch

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.0.99.1-1.fc12 

How reproducible:
Do a yum-builddep for wine in current rawhide. It tries to pull in libXxf86dga-devel-1.0.99.1-1.fc12.i686 which conflicts with xorg-x11-proto-devel-7.4-34.fc12.noarch


Steps to Reproduce:
1. See above.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:
See above.

Expected results:
Well, no such conflict.

Additional info:
Could be a wine (packaging) bug. However since bug #375981, bug #400721, and bug #416951 (the last three bugs reported against libXxf86dga) all are build problems that received no human attention (they were closed by bots) I decided to report against this product.
Comment 1 Paul Bolle 2009-10-26 08:45:38 UTC 
Possibly a duplicate of bug #530449 and bug #530464.
Comment 2 Paul Bolle 2009-10-26 11:42:19 UTC 
The "dist-f12-updates-candidate" (whatever that means) found at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1767972 (to which bug #530499 pointed) allowed the wine .srpm to compile without errors (as far as I can tell). Closing as duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 530499 ***
Comment 3 Paul Bolle 2009-10-26 15:01:57 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 530499 ***  

s/530499/530449/