Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 136295
gaim 1.0.0-5 requires aspell later than FC2
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:10:52 EST
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; sv-SE; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040809 Description of problem: When upgrading gaim to the one from FC3T3, but keeping apsell from FC2, gaim crashes whenever sending or receiving messages. At least over ICQ and MSN. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gaim-1.0.0-5 and aspell-0.50.3-19.1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Install aspell from FC2 2.Instal gaim from FC3T3 3.Start gaim and try to send a message Actual Results: The gaim window disappears. If I start gaim in an xterm and do this, I get this message: Gaim has segfaulted and attempted to dump a core file. This is a bug in the software and has happened through no fault of your own. ... Expected Results: The message should be sent/received. Additional info: Upgrading to aspell-0.50.5-2.fc3 from FC3T3 resolves the problem. So a reasonable solution would be to add Requires aspell >= 0.50.5 to the gaim package.
Why did you try to do this? You generally must use packages built on the same distribution or there may be unpredictable results. I'm sorry that this is not enforced by an explicit or implicit dep, but adding this would be too much of a maintenance burden as we maintain the same .spec across RHEL3, FC1, FC2, FC3 and RHEL4. Sorry.
> Why did you try to do this? The system isn't a pure FC2 system. I'm upgrading, but don't want to break everything at once, so I take it piecemal. Whenever I need to upgrade something, I take it from the most recent release. Often from a test release, if available, unless it is a critical package, so I can do some testing at the same time. It is of course reasonable for the new package to require the upgrade of other packages too to work properly. But if it does, it should say so in its requirements. Not that I expect everything to be perfect; I'm aware it is not easy to know all such details. But when I find it doesn't work I've considered it a bug and reported it. Like here! :-) > You generally must use packages built on the same distribution or > there may be unpredictable results. While I understand this would make it easier from a maintenance point of view, it has not previously been a requirement. At least not stated anywhere obvious. And I would find it unfortunate if it became one. I may want to use old packages because you have discontinued them, for example, or third party packages which do not exactly match any particlular release. Or pull a package from rawhide, without taking everything from there. Besides, a lot of the power in RPM would be pointless if you anyway required everything to come from the same release.