Taskotron depcheck question

[Tim Flink]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:59:44 +0100
Petr Pisar <ppisar at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 08:15:20AM -0500, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > 
> > >>I emailed the maintainers.  They don't seem to think it is a bug
> > >>because even though glibc-headers 32-bit isn't in the 64-bit
> > >>repo, someone could still install it.
> > >>
> > >Frankly I don't understand the error message. They checks
> > >miniz-devel.i686 on x86_64. So they checks packages accross
> > >different repositories. That does not make much sense. Could send
> > >me the contact?
> > 
> > I used the qa-devel mailing list.  This is the message exchange:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/2014-October/001015.html
> >
> Could you explain why you take i686 package from x86-32 repository
> and check it against x86_64 repository?

A normal x86_64 system has access to the x86-32 repos and with few
exceptions, x86-32 builds are installable via yum or dnf on an x86_64
system.

> As far as I know alternative-architecture multi-lib packages are
> distributed in the same repository as packages for the main
> architectue. E.g. glibc-devel.i686 is in x86_64 repository, hence
> glibc-devel is mutlilib. glibc-headers.i686 is not in the the x86_64,
> hence glibc-headers is not multi-lib.

Yeah, but the thing that's bugging me about this now that I'm digging
into it more is that miniz-devel.i686 is installable on f20 via dnf and
yum.

I'm not quite sure what's going on here but I'm going to dig into it
more. Filed a bug:

https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T372

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/attachments/20141106/803cc8b4/attachment.sig>