Description of problem: dnf upgrade gives these messages: Error: Transaction check error: file /etc/OpenCL/vendors/pocl.icd from install of pocl-0.13-4.fc25.i686 conflicts with file from package pocl-0.13-4.fc25.x86_64 file /usr/bin/pocl-standalone from install of pocl-0.13-4.fc25.i686 conflicts with file from package pocl-0.13-4.fc25.x86_64 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): pocl-0.13-4.fc25.x86_64 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1.dnf upgrade 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
How is it possible that you have i686 and x86_64 versions at the same time?
Created attachment 1145886 [details] dnf update log I got both pocl/i686 and pocl/x86-64 as well. None of them were installed before on my system. dnf update log may be useful for someone.
commit eafa6644010d91c4a5da3dd6d1fdf65f3c4c9596 Author: Björn Esser <me> Date: Fri Apr 8 17:52:40 2016 +0200 add virtual Provides for ocl-icd (RHBZ #1317605) I guess that commit broke it. Bjorn, ...?
(In reply to Marcin Juszkiewicz from comment #2) > Created attachment 1145886 [details] > dnf update log > > I got both pocl/i686 and pocl/x86-64 as well. None of them were installed > before on my system. > > dnf update log may be useful for someone. Can you show me `dnf update --debugsolver`? It will create debugdata directory, I'm interested in it.
Created attachment 1145887 [details] dnf debugdata
Igor, Thank you for your response to this bug report. It is my understanding that x86_systems have some software that uses 32 bit addressing and, sometimes the same package, that uses 64 bit addressing. Further, as I think I understand it, both pkgs can co-exist without problems. Now that I think of it, I don't see how binaries compiled for 32 bit addressing can co-exist with the same binary compiled for 64 bit addressing. The NON-binary files can exist to some extent depending on the package and the files provided. My F24 systems have a mixture of both 32 and 64 bit packages in them. I am NOT doing anything special to install both sets of packages... Simply, dnf upgrade. I have done group installs of ALL the packages in all the groups provided by/for F24. Whatever is in them is what I get. Maybe I'm making an unreasonable assumption here in that I assume that DNF tries for the architecture upon which it is executing. Yes? No? Wrong assumption? I don't have much trouble with these packages but there a very few that cause problems. I bring these to the "owner's" attention and usually the package is adjusted to handle the situation. This situation with Pocl appears to have a packing anomaly. Given the command I issued, just why DNF wants to install both is somewhat perplexing. rpm -q pocl gives this version: pocl-0.13-4.fc25.x86_64 which I installed specifically. Just why DNF tries to install both architectures is beyond me? Some other package uses/depends on Pocl? Perhaps this bug really belongs to them? As of this moment, dnf upgrade fails in transaction testing with these messages. The only way to get the other upgrades is to add "--exclude=pocl" What are your thoughts? George...
Created attachment 1146093 [details] tar.gz file containing debugdata and debugsolver.log
Created attachment 1146094 [details] gzip'd flat file showing a complete log of the attempted upgrade. Please disregard the previous file... I used the wrong command to get the data.
In my case pocl.i686 got installed as a dependency from ocl-icd-devel.i686. ocl-icd-devel.i686 I have installed for biarch run of GDB testsuite as GDB should be able to debug i686 binaries on x86_64 OS and so its whole testsuite is being run also built with -m32. And one/some of the testsuite files needs ocl-icd-devel to run.
Other items require pocl.i686 too, including wine, so this multilib conflict needs to be fixed.
A user had reported on irc this conflict after trying 'dnf install wine' but I cannot reproduce it. so that may be false alarm. Anyway, adjusting summary to better describe the issue.
I know a person suffering from the same problem when it tries to install wine
Have the same issue while doing dnf install wine on fresh F24 installation. Error: Transaction check error: file /etc/OpenCL/vendors/pocl.icd from install of pocl-0.13-4.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package pocl-0.13-4.fc24.x86_64 file /usr/bin/pocl-standalone from install of pocl-0.13-4.fc24.i686 conflicts with file from package pocl-0.13-4.fc24.x86_64
This problem affects me too, just like others on a fresh F24 installation trying to install wine.
For what it's worth, fc23 i686/x86_64 buids of pocl conflict similarly, file /etc/OpenCL/vendors/pocl.icd conflicts between attempted installs of pocl-0.12-1.fc23.i686 and pocl-0.12-1.fc23.x86_64 file /usr/bin/pocl-standalone conflicts between attempted installs of pocl-0.12-1.fc23.i686 and pocl-0.12-1.fc23.x86_64
Trying to figure out why pocl only *sometimes* gets pulled in when users try to install wine.... I found: Seems due to ocl-icd.spec dep: # Requires for virtual Provides: opencl-icd (RHBZ #1317600) Requires: opencl-icd%{?_isa} and that there are 2 providers (according to repoquery): pocl mesa-libOpenCL Added since, %changelog * Fri Apr 08 2016 Björn Esser <fedora> - 0.13-4 - add virtual Provides for ocl-icd (RHBZ #1317605) sometimes(?) pocl gets picked over mesa-libOpenCL Users, so one workaround to install wine: dnf install wine --exclude=pocl In pocl packaging, I'd suggest then, that # Virtual Provides for ocl-icd (RHBZ #1317605) Provides: opencl-icd Provides: opencl-icd%{?_isa} be removed at least until this multilib conflict is fixed.
*** Bug 1355850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Ran into the same issue @installation of wine today.
I also ran into the problem installing wine on a fresh install of F24.
SO I tried "dnf install wine --exclude=pocl" wich allowed Wine to install, but I seem to have no Graphics Card 3D Support now. Games come up with 3fps and my system seems to be trying to do the 3D processing cause my system fans go nuts.
ok, so I tried uninstalling wine then reinstalling it without "--exclude=pocl" and it worked fine. I guess supporting the "sometimes" experiences. But My graphics still sucked. So I downloaded & Installed the latest nvida drivers moving FROM 367.27 TO 367.35 and also reinstalling wine (again without the conflict) and all seems well now.
*** Bug 1366892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I dropped virtual provides/requires. Unfortunately I don't know solution for fixing this multilib issue. separating libs is not enough, because /etc/OpenCL/pocl* still references absolute path to libdir.
Try contacting your upstream to consult on possible solutions?
Rex, Is your comment above directed to me or Igor? THANKS for your help! George...
Any and all pocl maintainer(s) were my target audience... Or even anyone else interested in helping to solve this
https://github.com/pocl/pocl/issues/369
I confirm that the problem appears without explictly trying to install pocl in both archs. I encounter the exact same error simply when trying to install wine.
Any update on this bug?