Bug 181291 – openssl-devel.i386 missing from x86-64 distribution

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.

Bug 181291 - openssl-devel.i386 missing from x86-64 distribution

Summary:	openssl-devel.i386 missing from x86-64 distribution

Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 181289

Aliases:	None

Product:	Fedora
Classification:	Fedora
Component:	openssl (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	5
Hardware:	x86_64 Linux

Priority	medium Severity low
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Tomas Mraz
QA Contact:	Brian Brock
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2006-02-12 17:18 EST by H. Peter Anvin
Modified:	2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-02-12 22:41:21 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description H. Peter Anvin 2006-02-12 17:18:33 EST

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc4 Firefox/1.0.7

Description of problem:
openssl-devel.i386 is missing from the x86-64 distribution.  It makes it impossible to build 32-bit applications which require any of the openssl libraries on a 64-bit machine.

Installed from a 32-bit distribution it works fine, so it only needs to be added to the 64-bit distribution (so updating works.)


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Try to build an openssl-using application, e.g. git, as a 32-bit application on an x86-64 system


Additional info:

Comment 1 H. Peter Anvin 2006-02-12 22:41:21 EST

This bug apparently got accidentally submitted twice


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 181289 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.