Bug 455936 - xulrunner x86_64 broken
Summary: xulrunner x86_64 broken
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: xulrunner
Version: 9
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gecko Maintainer
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 455915
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-07-18 21:30 UTC by Nicolas A. Barriga
Modified: 2018-04-11 07:50 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-14 14:47:46 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
xulrunner-update.txt (5.28 KB, text/plain)
2008-07-19 23:12 UTC, Sterling Winter
no flags Details

Description Nicolas A. Barriga 2008-07-18 21:30:21 UTC
Description of problem:
When doing a 'yum update' I get problems between an installed x86_64 package 
and the i386 package. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xulrunner-1.9-1.fc9.x86_64 and xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386

How reproducible:
'yum update xulrunner' in a x86_64 machine.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum update xulrunner
2.
3.
  
Actual results:
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package: nspluginwrapper
--> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package: totem-mozplugin
--> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package: nspluginwrapper
---> Package xulrunner.x86_64 0:1.9.0.1-1.fc9 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Dependencies Resolved

=============================================================================
 Package                 Arch       Version          Repository        Size
=============================================================================
Updating:
 xulrunner               x86_64     1.9.0.1-1.fc9    updates           8.7 M
Installing for dependencies:
 xulrunner               i386       1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9  fedora            8.9 M

Transaction Summary
=============================================================================
Install      1 Package(s)
Update       1 Package(s)
Remove       0 Package(s)

Total size: 18 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test


Transaction Check Error:
  package xulrunner-1.9-1.fc9.x86_64 (which is newer than 
xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386) is already installed

Expected results:
xulrunner should update without problems

Additional info:

Comment 1 Sterling Winter 2008-07-19 04:47:06 UTC
Confirmed. 'yum update' of xulrunner.1.9.0.1-1.fc9.x86_64 on my x86_64 system
tries to pull in xulrunner.1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386 and all of the latter's
dependencies, even though I don't have the i386 version installed.

Comment 2 Nicolas A. Barriga 2008-07-19 20:30:44 UTC
This seems to be fixed now.

Comment 3 Sterling Winter 2008-07-19 23:12:07 UTC
Created attachment 312213 [details]
xulrunner-update.txt

(In reply to comment #2)
> This seems to be fixed now.

Hm, not sure what you did, but I rebuilt my cache from a couple of mirrors as
well as the main update repo and xulrunner.x86_64 still attempts to pull in
xulrunner.i386.

Comment 4 Nicolas A. Barriga 2008-07-20 00:01:10 UTC
I did nothing, just a reboot since yesterday. I just updated from 
fedora.c3sl.ufpr.br

No clue what changed, since the package installed is the one that yum had in 
cache since yesterday. 

Comment 5 Kayvan Sylvan 2008-07-20 02:20:01 UTC
I still have this problem too. I did a "yum clean all" and "yum update" still
tries to pull in the xulrunner.i386 and its dependencies.

Comment 6 Sterling Winter 2008-07-20 06:55:45 UTC
Found this, scroll down to the comments from other affected users:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-6518

Looks like another Fedora security update that was pushed out in haste. This is
disappointing because I got bitten by the recent kernel security update that
broke wifi (see bug 453390, bug 454036), and I'm suspecting a trend here.
Where's QA on this?


Comment 7 Matěj Cepl 2008-07-20 07:39:40 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 455915 ***

Comment 8 Jonathan Underwood 2008-07-22 18:54:44 UTC
Matej Cepl - I don't think this particular issue is a dupe of 455915 - I see
this problem in transactions which do not include gnome-python2-extras. What
makes you think this is a dupe of 455915?

Comment 9 Jonathan Underwood 2008-07-22 18:55:56 UTC
Added Cepl to the CC list - Matej, please see the question in Comment #8.

Comment 10 Matěj Cepl 2008-07-22 22:39:44 UTC
My reasoning was kind of pragmatic -- when all this will settle down, all this
zillion of duplicates will be resolved. We are not splitting here theoretical
hair about the nature of a bug, but making a TODO list for developers, so for me
it would be enough to have one bug "dependencies around gecko are mess, fix it".

But whatever, let's keep this bug opened and blocking bug 455915

Comment 11 Martin Stransky 2009-01-14 14:47:46 UTC
This one can be closed, right?


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