Description of problem: After "firefox" gets updated "gecko" (od Fedora Extras) also needs to be updated (Bug 230298) as there is "Requires: gecko-libs = 1.8.0.10". But the binaries still work if one overrides the broken RPM dependencies. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): firefox-1.5.0.10-5.fc6.x86_64 galeon-2.0.3-6.fc6.x86_64 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. yum update firefox Actual results: ... would break dependencies Expected results: Clean update as firefox-1.5.0.x are all ABI compatible. Additional info: According to stransky the dependency is there for the direct `/usr/lib64/firefox-1.5.0.10' library reference. IMO there should be specified an ABI stable release (1.5.0?), embedded this version using `ld -soname libxpcom.so.1.5.0', provide `/etc/ld.so.conf.d/firefox-1.5.0.10.conf' and the libxpcom applications need no longer use any direct directories references as LDCONFIG should choose the most recent version there according to comments: glibc/elf/ldconfig.c: For example, if the two libraries libxy.so.1.1 and libxy.so.1.2 exist and both have the same soname, e.g. libxy.so, a symbolic link is created from libxy.so.1.2 (the newer one) to libxy.so. libxy.so.1.2 and libxy.so are added to the cache - but not libxy.so.1.1.
btw. this bug was filled after a short discussion here in Brno. Chris, why we use the /usr/lib/firefox-{version} directories what break the update? Is there any security/ABI reason? Or did I miss something?
Oops, forget about that `/etc/ld.so.conf.d/firefox-1.5.0.10.conf' note as I expected multiple firefox version can get installed simultaneously which is not possible anyway. strasnky, I believe these directories were designed plugins for the unstable ABI which makes sense for 1.5 vs. 2.0 but I just do not believe it is needed even for the updates (.10). On #brno you said Firefox is not absolutely ABI stable across its updates. In such case this whole Bug would become WONTFIX as its fix would require the RHEL stable ABI backporting effort.
Hopefully once the build systems are merged, we can setup some automated way of doing this, or at least notify me ahead of time so i get a chance to push a galeon update before the firefox RPMs are pushed...
Lace, did you mean that I should close this as WONTFIX?
(In reply to comment #4) > Lace, did you mean that I should close this as WONTFIX? Please leave this bug open, I'll manage it. And I'd like to get a feedback from Chris, at least.
okay, closing.
(In reply to comment #6) > okay, closing. Any reason why the incompatibility exists?