Bug 782859 - expect.i386 is not available for RHEL 6 x86_64
Summary: expect.i386 is not available for RHEL 6 x86_64
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: expect
Version: 6.2
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Vitezslav Crhonek
QA Contact: BaseOS QE - Apps
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-01-18 17:27 UTC by Akemi Yagi
Modified: 2012-04-19 03:26 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-04-05 08:23:32 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2012:0456 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE expect bug fix update 2012-04-05 12:21:54 UTC

Description Akemi Yagi 2012-01-18 17:27:46 UTC
Description of problem:
expect-devel.i686 is available for x86_64 but expect.i386 is not. Is the omission on purpose or accidental?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.44.1.15-2.el6

How reproducible:
N/A

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 2 Dennis Gregorovic 2012-01-26 15:00:18 UTC
It's intentional.  By default, -devel packages are pulled in for multilib and then we also pull in any other packages required for dependency resolution.  None of the i686 packages in the RHEL 6 x86_64 tree specifically require expect.i686, so expect.i686 doesn't get pulled in.

Comment 3 Michael Lampe 2012-01-26 22:05:59 UTC
expect-devel.i686 _does_ depend on expect.i686:

/usr/lib/libexpect.so -> libexpect5.44.1.15.so

There is no /usr/lib/libexpect5.44.1.15.so in any package. It _is_ in expect.i686 which is not available for x86_64.

Please explain what the point of expect-devel.i686 is. It brings in nothing but a dead link if you install it. The fact that both expect-devel packages only depend on expect (without arch) only makes it install but doesn't help.

On the other hand, everything becomes correct again if one installs expect.i686. It also pulls nothing in that isn't already there.

Comment 4 Michael Lampe 2012-01-26 22:40:07 UTC
Description :
Expect is a tcl application for automating and testing
interactive applications such as telnet, ftp, passwd, fsck,
rlogin, tip, etc. Expect makes it easy for a script to
control another program and interact with it.

This package contains development files for the expect library.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Comment 5 Dennis Gregorovic 2012-01-27 15:03:36 UTC
Moving to the 'expect' component.  I can't speak specifically to whether expect-devel should Require expect or not.  However, if that dependency does get added to the RPM, it would automatically pull expect.i686 into future x86_64 trees.  Let's see what the package maintainer says.

Comment 6 Bill Nottingham 2012-01-27 17:43:42 UTC
Seems like a packaging bug, yes.

Comment 7 Vitezslav Crhonek 2012-02-06 13:10:06 UTC
Yes, it's a packaging issue - the libexpect.so link should be in expect package, not in expect-devel.

Comment 11 Michael Lampe 2012-02-11 20:22:47 UTC
One can always repackage -- for sure.

Will you ever repackage in EL6?? (I hope not!)

The plain *.so link is always in foo-devel.

The obvious solution is to promote expect.i686 to the x86_64 repo. With that, eveythings falls in place.

Nobody needs a new packaging scheme.

Or are you headings for a WONTFIX?

Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2012-04-05 08:23:32 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0456.html

Comment 14 Michael Lampe 2012-04-06 00:49:32 UTC
You simply removed biarch.

Congratulations for this both simple and ingenious idea.

Please post your account number here.


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