On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Andrea wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 21:39 +0000, Andrea wrote:
> SDL-devel requires alsa-lib-devel
> Foo-devel requires alsa-lib-devel
> There's no direct relation between SDL-devel and Foo-devel.
> yum remove alsa-lib-devel removes both SDL-devel Foo-devel, since
> both required alsa-lib-devel. yum install SDL-devel only install
> SDL-devel and its requirements, which do not include Foo-devel.
Sorry, my case is different
No, it isn't. You don't fully understand how rpm dependencies work.
And I suppose I didn't fully explain either. See below.
3 packages are installed:
alsa-lib-devel.ppc is NOT installed
For sure SDL-devel.ppc64 depends on alsa-lib-devel.ppc64.
The I have to guess that SDL-devel.ppc depends on alsa-lib-
devel.ppc64 too. (a bit strange though)
Otherwise I could not be installed.
Then I remove alsa-lib-devel.ppc64 and yum removes
Then when I install SDL-devel.ppc, yum installs
So it looks like alsa-lib-devel.ppc and alsa-lib-devel.ppc64 are
equivalent (for yum).
That is not possible since
/usr/lib/libasound.so is only part of ppc version
/usr/lib64/libasound.so is only part of ppc64 version.
SDL-devel Requires: alsa-lib-devel. Both alsa-lib-devel.ppc and alsa-
lib-devel.ppc64 Provides: alsa-lib-devel. End of story, from rpm's
perspective. Now, yum tries to be a bit brighter, and when no required
bit is installed on a multi-arch system, it'll try to get the package
that provides the required bits, of the same arch. As has been
mentioned before, multi-lib is a bit messy. RPM and package
dependencies were created long before people were running multi-lib 64-