Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 149141
popt needs to be broken up into popt and popt-devel
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:00 EST
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050109 Galeon/1.3.19 Description of problem: I am running a x86_64 system and trying to compile a package that depends on popt. With popt i386 and x86_64 both installed I can't because what should be a seperate -devel isn't. So I have to rpm -e --nodeps popt.i386, compile, and then reinstall popt i386. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): popt-1.9.1-21 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. rpm -ql popt | grep '\.h' Actual Results: /usr/include/popt.h Expected Results: Nothing Additional info: libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) ORBit2-2.12.0-3.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) libbonobo-2.8.0-2.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) GConf2-2.8.1-1.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) gnome-vfs2-2.8.2-8.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) libgnome-2.8.0-2.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) libbonoboui-2.8.0.99cvs20040929-2.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) libgnomeui-2.8.0-1.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) evolution-data-server-1.0.2-3.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) samba-common-3.0.10-1.fc3.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) libgnomeprint22-2.8.0-2.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) librsvg2-2.8.1-1.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) eel2-2.8.1-2.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) gnome-desktop-2.8.0-3.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) nautilus-2.8.1-4.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) nautilus-cd-burner-2.8.3-6.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) libcdio-0.70-1.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) hal-0.4.7-1.FC3.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) firefox-1.0-2.fc3.i386 libpopt.so.0 is needed by (installed) openoffice.org-1.1.3-6.5.0.fc3.i386
I disagree. popt been packaged like this for years and years and years.
So what if it has been that way for years and years. It isn't the standard way, and at this point it causes a problem with multi-arch systems.
Deleting the /usr/lib/libpopt.la fixes the compiling issue. --- /usr/lib/libpopt.la 2004-11-01 18:54:28.000000000 -0800 +++ /usr/lib64/libpopt.la 2004-11-01 18:57:43.000000000 -0800 @@ -32,4 +32,4 @@ dlpreopen='' # Directory that this library needs to be installed in: -libdir='/usr/lib' +libdir='/usr/lib64'
Adding libdir=/usr/lib64 to /usr/lib/libpopt.la in the ix86 package is not the right fix for this problem. Nor is deleting /usr/lib/libpopt.la. The ix86 packages cannot be maintained at that level of multilib awareness.
I posted the diff to point out the difference between the two .la files. The real fix is to make a -devel of popt, as originally requested. Hence the two seperate .la files will be not installed at once without breaking applications that need the 32bit .so file while others need the 64bit .so file.
I disagree the need for popt-devel.
(In reply to comment #6) > I disagree the need for popt-devel. Then what is the supported way of getting around this issue?