Using the app installer, after installing nspluginwrapper.x86_64, I can't install the i386 version. When trying to install it, GPK says it's already installed. raptor> rpm -qa | grep -i packagekit PackageKit-0.1.12-4.20080416git.fc9.x86_64 yum-packagekit-0.1.12-4.20080416git.fc9.x86_64 gnome-packagekit-0.1.12-5.20080416git.fc9.x86_64 PackageKit-libs-0.1.12-4.20080416git.fc9.x86_64 raptor>
Can you please attach the output from: gpk-application --verbose <then try to instal the _64 package> Thanks.
Could you be more specific? Remove both versions of nspluginwrapper and then verbosely install the the _64? (My original problem was _64 installed, can't install i386 version.) Thanks.
Well, try to reproduce the error you describe, so uninstall the i386 and then try to install it with packagekit. I've not got a 64 bit system, so can't try here.
Created attachment 303081 [details] typescript of gpk-application install of nspluginwrapper.i386 When I created the log, it did colorized logging so there's a lot of garbage in there but I think you can probably find what you're looking for.
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
Reporter, could you please reply to the previous question? If you won't reply in one month, I will have to close this bug as INSUFFICIENT_DATA. Thank you.
Created attachment 308643 [details] Log of failed package installation I think this is the very same problem, tried for the vorbis package on a x86_64 installation. To produce the log the following was done: - start app - search for "vorbis" (x86_64 version of libvorbis already installed, i386 is *not*) - try to install libvorbis.i386 - See failure message that package is already installed Hope that helps.
#6, did you not read #4? It was done a month and a half ago.
To make it obious that the questions has been answered, hasn't it?
Sorry, was too fast, thought it was still NEEDINFO. Can't reset it to NEW? But according to the new bug process ASSIGNED is probably right anyway, has it has been re-defined to be some sort of "problem understood" from "someone is working on it"...
ASSIGNED is good enough, I think
*** Bug 451915 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Should be fixed in rawhide.