Bug 10548 – rpm -Fvh against multiple ix86 architectures

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.

Bug 10548 - rpm -Fvh against multiple ix86 architectures

Summary:	rpm -Fvh against multiple ix86 architectures

Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 7771

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	rpm (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	6.2
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jeff Johnson
QA Contact:
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2000-04-03 13:06 EDT by Mihai Ibanescu
Modified:	2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2000-12-30 09:09:11 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

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

Groups: None (edit)

Description Mihai Ibanescu 2000-04-03 13:06:44 EDT

RedHat ships several packages compiled for several processors. For
instance, there is a gzip-x.y.z-i386.rpm and a gzip-x.y.x-i586.rpm

Having installed gzip-a.b.c-i386.rpm (for instance), where a.b.c < x.y.z,
trying

rpm -Fvh gzip-x.y.z-i?86.rpm

fails, with a lot of conflicts between the files from the two packages.

This is easily to reproduce.
Maybe NOTABUG, but annoying anyway.

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2000-08-07 09:43:13 EDT

Very annoying.

This problem will be addressed after rpm-4.0 is released.

Comment 2 Gerald Teschl 2000-12-30 05:45:28 EST

rpm 4.0 has been released;-)

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2000-12-30 09:09:08 EST

And the issue is still being addressed.

Comment 4 Jeff Johnson 2001-01-09 11:05:20 EST

Collecting duplicates at bugzilla #7771

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7771 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.