Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 190541 - 4.1.0-12: 32-bit gcc package requires 64-bit libraries
4.1.0-12: 32-bit gcc package requires 64-bit libraries
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gcc (Show other bugs)
powerpc Linux
medium Severity urgent
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jakub Jelinek
: Reopened
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-03 09:40 EDT by Joseph Sacco
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 4.1.0-13
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-05-05 09:51:36 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Joseph Sacco 2006-05-03 09:40:08 EDT
4.1.0-12: 32-bit gcc package requires 64-bit libraries

Discovered the problem when running yum update' problem on a 32-bit PowerMac.
The transaction check fails, complaining about missing 64-bit dependencies:

 Error: Missing Dependency: libgomp.so.1()(64bit) is needed by package gcc
 Error: Missing Dependency: libgfortran.so.1()(64bit) is needed by package
Error: Missing Dependency: libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) is needed by package gcc-c++

Comment 1 John Ellson 2006-05-03 10:52:14 EDT
Also, the 64-bit gcc packages now have a new dependency on the 32 bit libraries.

Comment 2 Jon Masters 2006-05-03 15:33:08 EDT
I am having exactly the same issue here today.
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2006-05-05 03:47:17 EDT
Should be fixed in gcc-4.1.0-13.  It was caused by the rpm requires generation
Comment 4 Jon Masters 2006-05-05 09:37:31 EDT
I can install the new gcc package, but trying to do a "yum update" causes things
to bomb out with the following warning, immediately after processing gcc:

python: rpmte.c:589 rpmteColorDS: Assertion `ix < Count' failed.
Comment 5 Jakub Jelinek 2006-05-05 09:51:36 EDT
That's a rpm bug on a different package, so why are you reopening this bug?

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