rawhide: libudev version bump, merged into systemd, libudev user need rebuild

Adam Jackson ajax at redhat.com
Wed Jun 6 13:26:25 UTC 2012

On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:12 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:

> #yum update mesa-libgbm
> [...]
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.i686 0:8.1-0.5.fc18 will be updated
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.x86_64 0:8.1-0.5.fc18 will be updated
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.i686 0:8.1-0.6.fc18 will be an update
> --> Processing Dependency: libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183) for package: 
> mesa-libgbm-8.1-0.6.fc18.i686
> --> Processing Dependency: libudev.so.1 for package: 
> mesa-libgbm-8.1-0.6.fc18.i686
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.x86_64 0:8.1-0.6.fc18 will be an update
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package systemd.i686 0:185-2.fc18 will be installed
> After having had some funny issues in the past due to there being two 
> systemds (x86_64, i686) installed for some reason, something tells me 
> that it's a bad idea to proceed with the update. Or am I wrong?

Having two systemd packages installed isn't necessarily a problem, rpm's
"color" concept on ELF objects should mean that x86_64 should win
wherever the two packages' files collide, which should only be
in /usr/*bin.  It's still not the prettiest thing in the world, I admit;
I'd be happier if there were a systemd-libs even if it were effectively
not optional.

But if there's not going to be a systemd-libs subpackage, any issues you
do have with this scenario are systemd bugs.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120606/0502e824/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list