As discussed with David, the intention in the Rawhide kernel-devel packages is to make it possible to install multiple of those for different archs in parallel. As shown below, it does not work for all of them. David reported that he was able to install the ppc and ppc64 devel packages in parallel, maybe that's because of ppc64 being multiarch and "allowing" ppc packages too. # rpm -q kernel-devel package kernel-devel is not installed # rpm -Uvh kernel-devel-2.6.10-1.1126_FC4.i586.rpm kernel-devel-2.6.10-1.1126_FC4.i686.rpm warning: package kernel-devel = 2.6.10-1.1126_FC4 was already added, replacing with kernel-devel <= 2.6.10-1.1126_FC4 Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:kernel-devel ########################################### [100%] # ls /usr/src/kernels/ 2.6.10-1.1126_FC4-i686 # rpm -Uvh kernel-devel-2.6.10-1.1126_FC4.i586.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package kernel-devel-2.6.10-1.1126_FC4 is already installed # rpm -q --qf '%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}' kernel-devel kernel-devel-2.6.10-1.1126_FC4.i686
Oh, and "rpm -U" vs "rpm -i" does not affect the problem in any way.
Mmmm, not sure how to fix this bug in a backwards compatible way...
One aspect of this bug are file conflicts in /lib/modules/${KVERREL}/, in particular the symlinks build and source. Those can be fixed by moving the symlinks into the kernel-* packages, out of kernel-*-devel, as suggested in bug #149210. I have proposed a patch for that today.
And indeed, RPM isn't willing to install the two - even though there are no longer any file conflicts. Over to fedora-maintainers to figure out what we want to do... # rpm -ivh i586/kernel-devel-2.6.11-1.1208_FC4.i586.rpm i686/kernel-devel-2.6.11-1.1208_FC4.i686.rpm warning: package kernel-devel = 2.6.11-1.1208_FC4 was already added, skipping kernel-devel < 2.6.11-1.1208_FC4 error: error reading from file i586/kernel-devel-2.6.11-1.1208_FC4.i586.rpm
I guess the code we have now is as far as we should go ;)
Cc'ing Jeremy per today's FESCO meeting. Re: comment 5, no objections here.