rawhide vs. protected multilib versions

[James Antill]

On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:52 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 16:13 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> 
> > Thanks.
> > 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?
> 
> So, at least on my F17 machine, gcc looks like this:
> 
> black-lotus:~% rpm -q --requires gcc | grep gomp
> libgomp = 4.7.0-1.fc17
> libgomp.so.1()(64bit)  
> 
> To me that looks like enough information that yum should be able to
> figure it out without explicit handholding.  I'd really call this a yum
> bug.

 These are two different requires, one isn't arch. specific and has a
version ... the other is arch. specific but doesn't have a version.

 I guess what you are saying is that it should be "easy" for yum to see
that both requires are provided by one package name, but the arch.
specific variant limits that ... and, yeh, maybe we could do something
like that and give a different error message in this case but it's far
from obvious how expensive that would be.

 This kind of thing has generally not been a high priority, because the
repos. are obviously broken ... and anything we do on the yum side will
still have the repos. broken and the install not possible (without doing
manual downgrades etc.)