Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1467435
libxslt-devel.i686 and libxslt-devel.x86_64 cannot be simultaneously installed.
Last modified: 2018-01-18 07:51:07 EST
Description of problem:
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/bin/xslt-config conflicts between attempted installs of libxslt-devel-1.1.29-1.fc26.i686 and libxslt-devel-1.1.29-1.fc26.x86
file /usr/include/libxslt/xsltconfig.h conflicts between attempted installs of libxslt-devel-1.1.29-1.fc26.i686 and libxslt-devel-1.1.
It seems that I had the previous versions installed fine? (not sure if I did force it or not):
libxslt-devel-1.1.28-13.fc25.x86_64 Mon 27 Feb 2017 23:07:27 GMT
libxslt-devel-1.1.28-13.fc25.i686 Mon 27 Feb 2017 23:07:24 GMT
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. have the previous in fc25
2. try upgrading
affects me as well. I did not force installing those libxslt packages.
workaround: remove libxslt-devel, upgrade to 26, worked for me.
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/bin/xslt-config from install of libxslt-devel-1.1.29-4.fc27.i686 conflicts with file from package libxslt-devel-1.1.29-4.fc27.x86_64
file /usr/include/libxslt/xsltconfig.h from install of libxslt-devel-1.1.29-4.fc27.i686 conflicts with file from package libxslt-devel-1.1.29-4.fc27.x86_64
This is still a bug in Fedora27
*** Bug 1524371 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This bug affects Fedora 27 and rawhide as well.
(In reply to jakkul from comment #2)
Can't work as these packages contain different files: bin/xslt-config and include/libxslt/xsltconfig.h. Both can be trivially patched to work under x86_64 and i686 simultaneously but it looks like the maintainer of this package is MIA or has stopped caring.
I could have sent the patches in but I'm pretty sure the bug won't be fixed until the maintainer gets replaced or someone from RedHat/Fedora steps in to resolve this issue.
I filed a similar bug for another package a while ago
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481351 , and even went as far as testing and submitting a patch. But I got shot down more than a few times as "Fedora does not support multiarch...".
The maintainer for that package is responsive to comments, but not co-operative.
I mean - what's wrong with just accepting a patch I submitted and close the bug as fixed (instead of "NOT A BUG, Fedora does not support multiarch" and just rejecting the patch without looking)? A few dozen other packages have a similar set up and support multiarch...
Many fedora packages have a *-32.h and a *-64.h and use a wrapper *.h to dispatch to either depending on wordsize. See my patch on the other bug report and my comments there.
Created attachment 1382851 [details]
(In reply to Hin-Tak Leung from comment #7)
> "Fedora does not support multiarch...".
Whoever said that must be fired and never work for/with Fedora ever again.
> Many fedora packages have a *-32.h and a *-64.h and use a wrapper *.h to dispatch to either depending on wordsize.
That's not necessary. I've actually gone ahead and written a very basic patch which Just Works™.
The only problem now is to find a proper person at Fedora/RedHat to ask to apply this patch.
Also, please change Fedora's version to 27 to make this bug report a little bit more actual.
This bug report falls under https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
(In reply to Hin-Tak Leung from comment #8)
Please follow this link https://pagure.io/fesco/new_issue and file a report on this bug report.
This bug report has seen zero responses for 7 months which automatically makes this maintainer unfit for its job (whatever his/her reasons are).
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #9)
> Created attachment 1382851 [details]
Thanks for spending time on this.
> (In reply to Hin-Tak Leung from comment #7)
> > "Fedora does not support multiarch...".
> Whoever said that must be fired and never work for/with Fedora ever again.
I have seriously thought about finding somebody higher up in the hierarchy to have this guy's maintainer status revoked, based on his responses:
And the way to do it is to use mock (or other chroot) to build the 32-bit package in a true 32-bit environment. Any other way is not supported in Fedora.
"Multiarched packages are for *compatibility* only, not development."
"Again, multiarch is only for binary compability in Fedora. If you want to develop 32-bit applications, use a chroot or mock."
"...Nobody wants to build a 32-bit library on a 64-bit host. We build 64-bit libraries on 64-bit hosts, and 32-bit libraries on 32-bit hosts. Multiarch allows you to keep using 32-bit applications on a 64-bit host; the packages are pulled from the 32-bit build. BUILDING 32-BIT APPLICATIONS ON 64-BIT FEDORA IS NOT SUPPORTED IN ANY WAY IN FEDORA!"
> Also, please change Fedora's version to 27 to make this bug report a little
> bit more actual.
(In reply to Hin-Tak Leung from comment #11)
I don't see any changes.
Again, please follow this link https://pagure.io/fesco/new_issue and file a report on this maintainer.
Igor, could you please pull some strings on the libxslt package? It's old, seemingly unmaintained, contains multiple memory leaks and other problems and there are even open CVE's against the version which comes in Fedora.