Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 --- Comment #37 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.leht...@iki.fi> 2009-12-06 13:24:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > Ok for mpqc, but not f2c. > > rpm -q --requires f2c > libc.so.6 > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7) > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Funny. I get: $ rpm -q --requires f2c f2c-libs = 20090411-4.fc12 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libf2c.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Here the libf2c.so.0()(64bit) part is picked up automatically. So in my opinion you can drop the explicit requirement. Btw, do you have redhat-rpm-config installed on your system..? Or, if you want to be on the safe side, you can make the dep arch explicit: Requires: f2c-libs%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} This would require that you install the 64-bit -libs with the 64-bit f2c package, even if you have the 32-bit -libs package present. Anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with the review any more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review