Re: buildsys Broken dependencies - libc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/15/2009 09:37 PM, Arthur G wrote: Hi anyonewhocanhelp, Just curious, is libc now an explicit dependency or should I buy a sense of humour? broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6 etc Regs, Arthur. You are not alone, I receives the same broken dependencies for PPC and PPC64. I wonder if migration for both architecture as second class has occurred in a process. - -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic Web Designer E: l...@fedoraproject.org W: http://www.thefinalzone.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksBDfwACgkQaS6HaNQHFTn31wCePwWtki4IJHQuv0vc2HfPe5nF V9kAn1O+pGsbFb5w3QD4KawQwgBfHu0S =Ojqa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: buildsys Broken dependencies - libc
On 11/16/2009 12:37 AM, Arthur G wrote: Hi anyonewhocanhelp, Just curious, is libc now an explicit dependency or should I buy a sense of humour? broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6 etc Everyone is getting these emails, therefore I assumed it would be fixed by someone other than the package maintainers :) Jeff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
buildsys Broken dependencies - libc
Hi anyonewhocanhelp, Just curious, is libc now an explicit dependency or should I buy a sense of humour? broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) xmlfy-1.5.0-1.fc12.ppc requires libc.so.6 etc Regs, Arthur. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
