rawhide vs. protected multilib versions

Kalev Lember kalevlember at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 15:39:02 UTC 2012

On 04/05/2012 06:23 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 04/05/2012 05:13 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Can anyone explain why appending that %{?_isa} notation is necessary?
>> Shouldn't dependency-tracking tools already know that libgomp is
>> an arch-dependent binary, and that of course if gcc.x86_64 is depending
>> on libgomp, it really wants the x86_64 version and not the i686 one,
>> at least by default?
> They know no such thing. All they see is a string that could be just as
> well "foo" with a version attached, and anything at all (could be
> different arch or even entirely different package) that provides "foo"
> with a suitable version is a perfectly legal match for it.

It's very understandable why rpm allows this. But yum's depsolver on the
other hand should be tailored to the way Fedora repos are set up and, in
my opinion, not install compat arch packages when it can solve the deps
with the primary arch packages.


More information about the devel mailing list