Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Description of problem: When in bug #199600 I was complainig that something similar to this libutempter i386 1.1.4-3.fc6 development 21 k replacing utempter.x86_64 0.5.5-7.2.2 libutempter x86_64 1.1.4-3.fc6 development 21 k replacing utempter.x86_64 0.5.5-7.2.2 i.e. x86_64 is getting replaced twice with one "replacement" beeing of a different architecture, then I was told that this was a packaging bug (in 'dbus-glib' at that time). So I gather that the above is a packaging bug for 'libutempter' although I am not sure what is precisely the problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): libutempter-1.1.4-3.fc6 There is no 'libutempter' bugzilla component at the moment.
I don't see how this would be a packaging bug. rpm/yum shouldn't try to replace a 32bit package with a 64bit one, nor vice versa. The rpm spec file, etc. has nothing to do with that really.
> I don't see how this would be a packaging bug. AFAICS yum guys on similar occasions insist, or at least insisted, that it is. The issue showed up a number of times under different disguises. I do not know if it was explicitly clarified in the meantime.
This looks a lot like the yum multilib heuristics going crazy. Blaming yum for now.
rpm has no arch specification for obsoletes so: Obsoletes: foo <= 1.1-1 will obsolete foo.i386 and foo.x86_64 when you run: rpm -Uvh this is a packaging bug.
Wow, how totally uninteresting...
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it. If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.) Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again.
This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than 30 days since feedback was first requested. As a result we are closing it. If you can reproduce this bug in the future against a maintained Fedora version please feel free to reopen it against that version. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp