The gcc-4.8.2-7.fc20.x86_64 package contains several symlinks to non-existent files. This affects /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libstdc++.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libstdc++.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libmudflap.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libmudflap.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libitm.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libitm.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libstdc++.so -> ../../../../libstdc++.so.6.0.19 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libasan.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libasan.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libquadmath.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libquadmath.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libgomp.so -> ../../../../libgomp.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libmudflapth.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libmudflapth.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libgcc_s.so -> /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libsupc++.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libsupc++.a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/32/libatomic.a -> ../../../i686-redhat-linux/4.8.2/libatomic.a Additional info: all symlinks go to i686 libraries, but the package does not depend on those i686 packages. I think the x86_64 package should instead symlink to the x86_64 libraries.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '20'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
The links are not incorrect, they are there on purpose and are satisfied if the corresponding multilib packages are installed.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > The links are not incorrect, they are there on purpose and are satisfied if > the corresponding multilib packages are installed. Shouldn't they be part of the i686 subpackage then?
No, they can't. Say the libstdc++.i686 package doesn't really know whether it will be used by a 64-bit compiler - gcc-c++.x86_64, or 32-bit one - gcc-c++.i686, or neither of those, so it can't put symlinks in there, because the paths differ.