Bug 1036328 - Should mesa-vdpau-drivers be multilib?
Summary: Should mesa-vdpau-drivers be multilib?
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: mash
Version: 20
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dennis Gilmore
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-12-01 01:31 UTC by Chris Adams
Modified: 2014-05-09 18:57 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-05-09 18:57:14 UTC
Type: Bug

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Chris Adams 2013-12-01 01:31:07 UTC 
Shouldn't the mesa-vdpau-drivers RPM be multilib?  In other words, shouldn't you be able to install the i686 RPM on x86_64 (for 32 bit binaries)?
Comment 1 Adam Jackson 2013-12-09 16:08:06 UTC 
Yes.  Is it not?
Comment 2 Chris Adams 2013-12-09 16:19:38 UTC 
Nope, not in the repos.  You can take the i686 RPM and install it on x86_64 just fine, but it is not in the x86_64 repo.  For example:

disk:7:/srv/mirror/pub/fedora/linux/development/20/x86_64/os/Packages/m$ ls mesa*drivers*
mesa-dri-drivers-9.2.3-1.20131114.fc20.i686.rpm
mesa-dri-drivers-9.2.3-1.20131114.fc20.x86_64.rpm
mesa-vdpau-drivers-9.2.3-1.20131114.fc20.x86_64.rpm

DRI drivers have both, but VDPAU do not.
Comment 3 Adam Jackson 2013-12-09 17:28:20 UTC 
That still isn't something I can fix from within the package, afaik.
Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2013-12-09 17:36:05 UTC 
Fix added to upstream git master.
Comment 5 Chris Adams 2014-05-09 18:57:14 UTC 
This is fixed in the published trees.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.