Description of problem: We need to remove the x86_64 firefox and replace it with i386 firefox so we can use j2re-1.4.2_02 with Oracle to support customers. Unfortunately many needed dependencies are not present. Here is the rpm output when attempting to install the i386 firefox on an x86_64 fc5test1 system: $ sudo rpm -ivh firefox-1.5-0.5.0.rc3.i386.rpm warning: firefox-1.5-0.5.0.rc3.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 30c9ecf8 error: Failed dependencies: libbonoboui-2.so.0 is needed by firefox-1.5-0.5.0.rc3.i386 libgnome-2.so.0 is needed by firefox-1.5-0.5.0.rc3.i386 libgnome-keyring.so.0 is needed by firefox-1.5-0.5.0.rc3.i386 libgnomeui-2.so.0 is needed by firefox-1.5-0.5.0.rc3.i386 Please fight to restore these dependencies before FC5-GOLD, thanks.
I agree.... most browser plugins do not work for x86_64 systems and there are no plans to make them work soon (flash, java, acroread, etc.). I have been installing the i386 version by hand. You need to install the i386 versions of the above packages, just get the from the i386 repository, then remove the firefox x86_64 and install the i386 one. For konqueror just overwriting /usr/bin/nspluginscan and /usr/bin/nspluginviewer with the corresponding i386 ones work too. We do actually have kdebase i386 and x86_64 installed but x86_64 is the default for binaries in /usr/bin.
Is there any update on this issue?
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
This bugzilla had previously been approved for engineering consideration but Red Hat Product Management is currently reevaluating this issue for inclusion in RHEL4.6.
This request was previously evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release, but Red Hat was unable to resolve it in time. This request will be reviewed for a future Red Hat Enterprise Linux release.
While it is possible to install x86_64 and i386 Firefox RPMs at the same time in FC8, it still doesn't work correctly. The /usr/bin/firefox script will by default run the x86_64 firefox binary if it is installed, but this means none of the plugins like Shockwave, etc will be available. Conversely, if the x86_64 firefox RPM is not installed then the Gnome devhelp system will not work.
Since this bugzilla report was filed, we have seriously upgraded Gecko-related packages, which may have resolved this issue. Users who have experienced this problem are encouraged to upgrade their system to the latest version of their distribution available. Please, confirm to us that this bug is reproducible on the latest upgrade of the supported distribution (that's RHEL, or Fedora 7, 8, and Rawhide). Setting the bug to NEEDINFO. If I won't get confirmation of reproducability in 30 days, the bug will be closed as INSUFFICIENT_DATA. [This is mass-changing of bugs which seem to be too old and irrelevant anymore; we are sorry, if this bug should not be incldued.]
(In reply to comment #26) > While it is possible to install x86_64 and i386 Firefox RPMs at the same time in > FC8, it still doesn't work correctly. The /usr/bin/firefox script will by > default run the x86_64 firefox binary if it is installed, but this means none of > the plugins like Shockwave, etc will be available. Conversely, if the x86_64 > firefox RPM is not installed then the Gnome devhelp system will not work. This problem still exists with the current firefox release 2.0.0.12-1.fc8. The default /usr/bin/firefox wrapper will run the x86_64 binary instead of the i686 binary, meaning that most of the plugins (jre, shockwave) will not be available: MOZ_ARCH=$(uname -m) case $MOZ_ARCH in ia64 | s390 ) # AED x86_64 | ia64 | s390 ) MOZ_LIB_DIR="/usr/lib64" SECONDARY_LIB_DIR="/usr/lib" ;; * ) MOZ_LIB_DIR="/usr/lib" SECONDARY_LIB_DIR="/usr/lib64" ;; esac I've changed the wrapper so that the 64-bit firefox is not used even if it is installed. I would even uninstall the 64-bit firefox if I could, but the devhelp package requires it... Hmm, it seems possible to uninstall firefox.x86_64 now, so I guess this bug doesn't need to be reopened, but I'm adding this comment as a more useful conclusion than the boilerplate above.
1. This bug is for RHEL not for Fedora 2. That behavior is designed. If you have both 32 and 64 bit versions of _any_ package installed, running it will run the 64 bit version. However, you can run the 32 bit version without making any tweaks to the script by simply doing : setarch i386 firefox
The "setarch i386 firefox" solution from Christopher Aillon in Comment #29 is a fine one. Now the Flash plugin works, but I can not use Sun's 32-bit Java 1.6 plugin. For Java development, I use Sun's 64-bit Java 1.6 (for x86_64), and when I tried to install the 32-bit version, I got file /usr/share/applications/java-1.6.0-sun-ControlPanel.desktop from install of java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.17-1jpp.2.el5.i586 conflicts with file from package java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.17-1jpp.2.el5.x86_64 file /usr/share/applications/java-1.6.0-sun-javaws.desktop from install of java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.17-1jpp.2.el5.i586 conflicts with file from package java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.17-1jpp.2.el5.x86_64 file /usr/share/man/man1/javaws-java-1.6.0-sun.1.gz from install of java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.17-1jpp.2.el5.i586 conflicts with file from package java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.17-1jpp.2.el5.x86_64 So instead I am using IBM's 32-bit Java 1.6 plugin (for i386).
Regarding Comment #31, I also tried removing the Sun 64-bit plugin, which allowed me to successfully install the 32-bit plugin. But I got similar error messages when I tried to install the Sun 32-bit JRE (without uninstalling the Sun 64-bit JRE). So I still can not use the Sun 32-bit plugin as long as I use Sun's 64-bit Java.
Thank you for submitting this issue for consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The release for which you requested us to review is now End of Life. Please See https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ If you would like Red Hat to re-consider your feature request for an active release, please re-open the request via appropriate support channels and provide additional supporting details about the importance of this issue.