Description of problem: On x86_64 we have both -devel rpms for x86_64 and i386, but the libao.i386 rpm is missing. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
libao-devel doesn't depend on libao, which is why it doesn't get pulled in. If libao.i386 is really needed, then having libao-devel depend on it would be the preferred solution.
Trivial fix
It does depend on libao = %{version} AFAICS. I can change that to libao = %{version}-%{release}. Not sure if that makes much difference here.
If the requires for the package is already in, then the rpm itself is ok. Question is what benefit the libao-devel.i386 should be if the libao.i386 is missing and you cannot link against it. regards, Florian La Roche
So, the cause of this issue is that libao suppresses automatic dependency generator: %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %define __find_requires %{SOURCE1} The reason it does that is to avoid requiring esd, artsd, audiofile, and asound. SOURCE1 is: #!/bin/sh filelist=`sed "s/['\"]/\\\&/g"` { echo $filelist | tr [:blank:] \\n | /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires | \ grep -v artsc | grep -v esd | grep -v audiofile | grep -v asound } | sort -u I don't know enough RPM to tell what SOURCE1 should be doing that it isn't. :(
Bill, Do you have a suggestion for how this package can be tweaked such that libao properly depends on libao-devel?
A simple: %ifarch ia64 x86_64 s390x ppc64 Requires: libao.so.<whatever>()(64bit) %else Requires: libao.so.<whatever> %endif should work.
Built libao-0.8.6-6. Can someone test this please before I go through the errata process? Thanks.
I've tagged the build so that it should be picked up in tomorrow's nightly, and we can see if that fixes the problem.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2008-0101.html