On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:59:44 +0100 Petr Pisar <[email protected]> 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
