vtk (or one of its subpacakges) has multiarch conflicts when installed for both i386 and x86_64 in the Fedora development tree. For help in resolving them, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks. file /usr/include/vtk/vtkConfigure.h from install of vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 conflicts with file from package vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 file /usr/include/vtk/vtkTypeInt64Array.h from install of vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 conflicts with file from package vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 file /usr/include/vtk/vtkTypeUInt64Array.h from install of vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 conflicts with file from package vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 file /usr/include/vtk/vtknetcdf/ncconfig.h from install of vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 conflicts with file from package vtk-devel-5.0.3-20.fc8 (Note that this is an automated bug filing.) It would be nice to have these bugs fixed by the beta of Fedora 9.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
The files in question have diffs like -class VTK_COMMON_EXPORT vtkTypeUInt64Array : public vtkUnsignedLongLongArray +class VTK_COMMON_EXPORT vtkTypeUInt64Array : public vtkUnsignedLongArray This could a) either be wrapped into #ifdef (what's the define one would check against?), b) or file-wrapped out into an arch subdir with an include stub, c) or blacklisted Since a) would only solve comparing two archs and Fedora runs more than to arch, b) would be the more generic approach. Since no one in the vtk community has ever expressed interest into building for i386 on x86_64 (w/o a sane chroot solution), I tend to blacklisting vtk. What do you say?
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days