Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 23:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: John Reiser wrote: Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent. This is a common and systematic error which causes much grief. None of the tools check for it, which is another bug^Wopportunity for enhancement. %{?_isa} wouldn't really fix this. It'd just change the error from protected multilib versions to unresolvable dependencies. The real issue is that the repository contains packages with broken dependencies, and there's no magic bullet to fix that in yum or in the packaging. There is, however, talk about enforcing the AutoQA dependency checks on the Bodhi end, which should fix that problem in most cases. AFAICS the real problem here is that an update got unpushed. It seems like Richard got the 64-bit version of libvirt -3 installed, then the -3 update got unpushed, then something wanted to install the 32-bit version of libvirt. Obviously, since the update had been unpushed, it was impossible to find the matching 32-bit version. As long as updates can be unpushed, that one can pop up. The other classic case where we get a lot of this (and similar errors) is when we push the fedora-release update which disables updates-testing; people have the 64-bit version of something installed from updates-testing, then they need to have the 32-bit version installed, but now updates-testing is disabled... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
Adam Williamson wrote: AFAICS the real problem here is that an update got unpushed. It seems like Richard got the 64-bit version of libvirt -3 installed, then the -3 update got unpushed, then something wanted to install the 32-bit version of libvirt. Obviously, since the update had been unpushed, it was impossible to find the matching 32-bit version. As long as updates can be unpushed, that one can pop up. Oh, so this is yet another example of fallout from the braindead decision to enable updates-testing by default for Branched. The other classic case where we get a lot of this (and similar errors) is when we push the fedora-release update which disables updates-testing; people have the 64-bit version of something installed from updates-testing, then they need to have the 32-bit version installed, but now updates-testing is disabled... And that's the other reason why that decision is broken. updates-testing should NEVER be on by default. There is no expectation of upgrade path in updates-testing (whereas there is one even in Rawhide!), so enabling it by default is very broken. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 17:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: AFAICS the real problem here is that an update got unpushed. It seems like Richard got the 64-bit version of libvirt -3 installed, then the -3 update got unpushed, then something wanted to install the 32-bit version of libvirt. Obviously, since the update had been unpushed, it was impossible to find the matching 32-bit version. As long as updates can be unpushed, that one can pop up. Oh, so this is yet another example of fallout from the braindead decision to enable updates-testing by default for Branched. Um...no? The case listed *below* would be, but updates-testing doesn't seem particularly relevant to the above case. If updates-testing didn't exist at all, you'd still have the potential of this problem happening if updates could be unpushed. The other classic case where we get a lot of this (and similar errors) is when we push the fedora-release update which disables updates-testing; people have the 64-bit version of something installed from updates-testing, then they need to have the 32-bit version installed, but now updates-testing is disabled... And that's the other reason why that decision is broken. updates-testing should NEVER be on by default. There is no expectation of upgrade path in updates-testing (whereas there is one even in Rawhide!), so enabling it by default is very broken. Yes and no. It's 'very broken' in the sense that we know it can cause a bit of this kind of pain for people who install pre-releases and update them to final releases. However, we're perfectly aware of the general sorts of issues the process can cause and consider them to be an acceptable trade-off for the considerable _benefits_ of having updates-testing enabled by default (lots more testing of the packages). We really mean the whole thing about pre-releases eating babies, and this is just one instance of that. If you're not prepared to do a bit of yum handholding to work around issues like this now and again, you have no business installing a pre-release of Fedora. I'm not sure it's practically possible to make that *not* the case. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
Adam Williamson wrote: Um...no? The case listed *below* would be, but updates-testing doesn't seem particularly relevant to the above case. If updates-testing didn't exist at all, you'd still have the potential of this problem happening if updates could be unpushed. Stable updates cannot be unpushed. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:34:29PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: John Reiser wrote: Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent. This is a common and systematic error which causes much grief. None of the tools check for it, which is another bug^Wopportunity for enhancement. %{?_isa} wouldn't really fix this. It'd just change the error from protected multilib versions to unresolvable dependencies. The real issue is that the repository contains packages with broken dependencies, and there's no magic bullet to fix that in yum or in the packaging. There is, however, talk about enforcing the AutoQA dependency checks on the Bodhi end, which should fix that problem in most cases. Well it could, if we were smarter about the order in which files on the mirrors got updated. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I still get this error several times a week, and I still have no idea what it means or how I'm supposed to respond to it (other than fiddling randomly with packages until it goes away). The latest one: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd [... yum spew deleted ...] Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -qa | grep libvirt-client libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? The 32bit and 64bit version of a lib must match. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I still get this error several times a week, and I still have no idea what it means or how I'm supposed to respond to it (other than fiddling randomly with packages until it goes away). The latest one: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd [... yum spew deleted ...] Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -qa | grep libvirt-client libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? The 32bit and 64bit version of a lib must match. Err clicked send too soon. For some reason you seem to be installing -2.ii686 while you have -3.x86_64 installed ... outdated mirror? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 01:23:28PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I still get this error several times a week, and I still have no idea what it means or how I'm supposed to respond to it (other than fiddling randomly with packages until it goes away). The latest one: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd [... yum spew deleted ...] Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -qa | grep libvirt-client libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? You have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17 installed. Your yum update command is trying to pull in the libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17 and is only finding the x86_64 version in your yum repos. Either you manually installed a 32bit RPM that was not via the yum repos, or your yum repos have lost the 32-bit RPMs, or perhaps you have blacklisted 32-bit RPMs in your yum conf. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 01:23:28PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I still get this error several times a week, and I still have no idea what it means or how I'm supposed to respond to it (other than fiddling randomly with packages until it goes away). The latest one: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd [... yum spew deleted ...] Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -qa | grep libvirt-client libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? You have both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17 installed. Your yum update command is trying to pull in the libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17 and is only finding the x86_64 version in your yum repos. Either you manually installed a 32bit RPM that was not via the yum repos, or your yum repos have lost the 32-bit RPMs, or perhaps you have blacklisted 32-bit RPMs in your yum conf. Oh, and incidentally you don't want to be install the 0.9.10-3.fc17 version of libvirt - it has broken packaging and was unpushed replaced by 0.9.11-1.fc17. Sadly there seems to be quite a delay in Bohdi updating F17 repos currently :-( Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
# yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? ... Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent. This is a common and *systematic* error which causes much grief. None of the tools check for it, which is another bug^Wopportunity for enhancement. -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I still get this error several times a week, and I still have no idea what it means or how I'm supposed to respond to it (other than fiddling randomly with packages until it goes away). The latest one: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd [... yum spew deleted ...] Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -qa | grep libvirt-client libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? You can get this when a package wants the older version of (in this case) libvirt-client and tries to pull in the i686 version to resolve the dependency when it doesn't specify a particular arch. Michael Young -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:32:47AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? ... Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent. This is a common and *systematic* error which causes much grief. None of the tools check for it, which is another bug^Wopportunity for enhancement. Is there any information about when this should be used? I don't think I've ever written a spec file that uses it. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:54:36PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Is there any information about when this should be used? I don't think I've ever written a spec file that uses it. I think it is whenever a package containing a library (i.e. a multilib package) is required via the package's name, then it needs to be used due to multilib. Btw. is there an easy way to get a list of all packages that are multilib? Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:32:47AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: # yum install /usr/sbin/libvirtd Error: Protected multilib versions: libvirt-client-0.9.10-2.fc17.i686 != libvirt-client-0.9.10-3.fc17.x86_64 What does the error mean? ... Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent. This is a common and *systematic* error which causes much grief. None of the tools check for it, which is another bug^Wopportunity for enhancement. Is there any information about when this should be used? I don't think I've ever written a spec file that uses it. The packaging guidelines describe several cases, search for arch-specific. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Repost] What is Error: Protected multilib versions
John Reiser wrote: Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent. This is a common and systematic error which causes much grief. None of the tools check for it, which is another bug^Wopportunity for enhancement. %{?_isa} wouldn't really fix this. It'd just change the error from protected multilib versions to unresolvable dependencies. The real issue is that the repository contains packages with broken dependencies, and there's no magic bullet to fix that in yum or in the packaging. There is, however, talk about enforcing the AutoQA dependency checks on the Bodhi end, which should fix that problem in most cases. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel