Bug 228617 - compiz-devel requires libdecoration.so.0
Summary: compiz-devel requires libdecoration.so.0
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: compiz
Version: 6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kristian Høgsberg
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-02-13 23:34 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-08-21 16:06:58 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2007-02-13 23:34:34 UTC
Description of problem:
yum update failed today because

--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: libdecoration.so.0 for package: compiz-devel
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Missing Dependency: libdecoration.so.0 is needed by package compiz-devel

This only happened on my x86_64 machines.  The i386 machines all happily upgraded.

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

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install a previous version of compiz and compiz-devel
2. yum update

Actual results:
The yum update fails with the error message given above.

Expected results:
Yum should successfully update compiz and compiz-devel.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Jerry James 2007-02-22 03:20:40 UTC
It turns out that we had both the x86_64 and i386 versions of compiz-devel
installed.  Uninstalling the i386 version let the yum update go through.  This
means that the i386 compiz-devel currently in x86_64 updates is not installable.

Comment 2 Kristian Høgsberg 2007-08-15 22:41:28 UTC
I think I tracked this one down.  Is it possible for you to reproduce the same
setup and see if it is fixed with compiz-0.5.2-5.0ec3ec.fc8?  Thanks.

Comment 3 Jerry James 2007-08-16 20:21:47 UTC
I just changed jobs and moved and, alas, I no longer have access to an x86_64
machine.  I'm i686 only until I feel rich enough to buy a new computer. :-(

Comment 4 Kristian Høgsberg 2007-08-21 16:06:58 UTC
Heh, let me know if you get an x86_64 and still see this problem.  In the
meantime, I haven't seen this reported from anybody else, and I'll close this
for now.  Thanks.

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