Am 31.10.2013 17:27, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:29:18 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Why did you have openssl.i686 installed on x86_64 to begin with?
>> You have messed up your installation. :-(
>> Have you use rpm -Uvh instead of rpm -Fvh? Or why have you installed
> the machine has a long history
Well, then it needs to be cleaned up from time to time.
until today i thought it is as clean as possible because
a self-maintained meta-package and anything which get
listed by "package-cleanup --leaves --all" is removed
but sadly you can't do "Requires: package.x86_64" explicitly
this way and so "Requires: openssl" catched both
"yum list extras" as well as "package-cleanup
--orphans" on an up-to-date
installation shows all packages, which are not available in the enabled
repos anymore. If you store everything you install directly via "rpm" in
a local repo, you can keep track of packages that have been dropped by
Fedora. Such as openssl.i686 for x86_64.
> i was the impression that in such cases all or nothing should be x86_64 and i686
> or at least if both can be installed parallel they are also updated clean
Download "mash" src.rpm and examine it. The basic multilib repo compose
strategy is to make merge all *-devel packages and their dependencies plus
a few packages from a whitelist. It has been like that since Fedora Extras.
Typically, openssl-devel requires openssl-libs, and if the "openssl" base
package is not on the whitelist, something else would need to require it
arch-specific. No i686 pkg in the x86_64 repo does currently:
# repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires 'openssl(x86-32)'
# repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires 'openssl(x86-64)'
# repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires openssl|wc -l
thank you for that worthful input!