Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:17:39PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > All of the cross-compiled apps ... by which I mean apps cross-compiled using our libraries, like mingw32-gtk2. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 75 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:35:42PM -0400, David wrote: > Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are > written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current > version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in > Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that > ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. All of the cross-compiled apps from the Fedora MinGW project. If you find one which doesn't work in Wine, please file a bug about it. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
2009/7/12 Joonas Sarajärvi : > 2009/7/12, David : >> Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are >> written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current >> version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in >> Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that >> ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. >> >> I am serious here. Really. The names are...? > > For me, > - Spotify > > And a quite long list of games, including > - the IL-2 Sturmovik series > - the Homeworld series > - Trainz > - Areena 5 > - Diablo II > - Command & Conquer (might be close to a DOS game, but it's still win32) > - Sim City 4 > - Age of Mythology > - Rollercoaster tycoon > - and many more > > I consider games to be a real use case. > -- > Joonas Sarajärvi > mue...@gmail.com > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > HEY, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION, PLEASE!!! I'm not a newbey and I've been using my kick files for the last 3-4 months. This is the first time that I got 32 bit apps in my livecd. The most strange thing is that after deleting all *.i?86, yum deletes some x86_64 apps as well. After this i tried to install back the deleted x86_64 and the same i?86 are pulled in as dependencies. I don't know how this could have happened. I do saw that there is some update to yum (in koji) which says something like "making livecd-creator works again". Maybe I just hit some nasty bug. I'll try to compose one more x86_64 livecd and if this happenes agian I'll file a bug against yum (or livecd-creator) --joshua PS: I've never used wine and it's not included in my kick files (so please stop this windoof discussion) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
2009/7/12, David : > Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are > written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current > version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in > Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that > ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. > > I am serious here. Really. The names are...? For me, - Spotify And a quite long list of games, including - the IL-2 Sturmovik series - the Homeworld series - Trainz - Areena 5 - Diablo II - Command & Conquer (might be close to a DOS game, but it's still win32) - Sim City 4 - Age of Mythology - Rollercoaster tycoon - and many more I consider games to be a real use case. -- Joonas Sarajärvi mue...@gmail.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 4:35 AM, David wrote: >> On 7/11/2009 9:35 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 17:03, David wrote: >>> On 7/11/2009 6:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Frank Murphy wrote: >> Doesn't seem to work for wine :) > > That's because WINE is only 32-bit, because most Winblow$ executables > are. > > Kevin Kofler "Winblow$"? You really should learn some control here. The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show respect where respect is warranted. Microsoft should recieve that respect IMO. 90% of the desktop computers in the world use some version of Windows. More desktop computers use some form of Mac OS than all combined versions (distributions) of Linux. WINE? Is a nice concept. But it will never, again IMO, as long as the 'Windows programs' that WINE can run are mostly really old DOS programs. Sheesh. -- >>> >>> Perhaps you should do a little research before you spout off. Wine is >>> capable of running very modern day applications that are written for the >>> windows platform. It is anything but old dos programs. >> >> >> Mr. Keating. May I call you Jessie? I know who you are and I respect you >> a lot. >> >> Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are >> written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current >> version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in >> Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that >> ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. >> >> I am serious here. Really. The names are...? > > Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Visio, Quicken, Lotus > Notes and games like WoW, CoD, Halflife, Counter Strike + many more. > > Sure they are all "old DOS programs" that nobody uses > Forgot to add wine does not even support DOS programs (you can use dosbox for them) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 4:35 AM, David wrote: > On 7/11/2009 9:35 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2009, at 17:03, David wrote: >> >>> On 7/11/2009 6:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Frank Murphy wrote: > Doesn't seem to work for wine :) That's because WINE is only 32-bit, because most Winblow$ executables are. Kevin Kofler >>> >>> >>> "Winblow$"? >>> >>> You really should learn some control here. >>> >>> The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show >>> respect where respect is warranted. >>> >>> Microsoft should recieve that respect IMO. >>> >>> 90% of the desktop computers in the world use some version of Windows. >>> More desktop computers use some form of Mac OS than all combined >>> versions (distributions) of Linux. >>> >>> WINE? Is a nice concept. But it will never, again IMO, as long as the >>> 'Windows programs' that WINE can run are mostly really old DOS programs. >>> >>> Sheesh. >>> -- >>> >> >> Perhaps you should do a little research before you spout off. Wine is >> capable of running very modern day applications that are written for the >> windows platform. It is anything but old dos programs. > > > Mr. Keating. May I call you Jessie? I know who you are and I respect you > a lot. > > Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are > written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current > version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in > Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that > ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. > > I am serious here. Really. The names are...? Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Visio, Quicken, Lotus Notes and games like WoW, CoD, Halflife, Counter Strike + many more. Sure they are all "old DOS programs" that nobody uses -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Wine was: Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 12/07/09 03:35, David wrote: > > Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are > written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current > version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in > Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that > ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. > > I am serious here. Really. The names are...? > http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=2591 All I'm interested in. I also test in wine, but keep forgetting the paperwork. I find makehuman, currently in a position. That it's not a perfect substitute: http://www.makehuman.org/blog/index.php But I keep testing, looking in Regards, Frank -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 7/11/2009 11:53 PM, Eric Springer wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM, David wrote: >> I am serious here. Really. The names are...? > > It's besides the point, but there are quite a few games (World of > Warcraft, Half-life 2 etc.) that run perfectly under wine. I do think > Kevin does need to act a little more maturely though (especially now > that he's got an official position), and I also know that nothing is > going to be gained by continuing this emotional argument. > "quite a few games"? "quite a few games" does not count IMO as a real world situation. Real Microsoft applications. Not games. As for Keven? He needs. IMO, to control his emotions if he really wants to be a 'voice?'. Those of use that have been here for years can deal with that. Newbies? They see what is written. My anyone. Wrong or right. as 'the truth". Period. -- David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM, David wrote: > > I am serious here. Really. The names are...? It's besides the point, but there are quite a few games (World of Warcraft, Half-life 2 etc.) that run perfectly under wine. I do think Kevin does need to act a little more maturely though (especially now that he's got an official position), and I also know that nothing is going to be gained by continuing this emotional argument. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 7/11/2009 9:35 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 2009, at 17:03, David wrote: > >> On 7/11/2009 6:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> Frank Murphy wrote: Doesn't seem to work for wine :) >>> >>> That's because WINE is only 32-bit, because most Winblow$ executables >>> are. >>> >>>Kevin Kofler >> >> >> "Winblow$"? >> >> You really should learn some control here. >> >> The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show >> respect where respect is warranted. >> >> Microsoft should recieve that respect IMO. >> >> 90% of the desktop computers in the world use some version of Windows. >> More desktop computers use some form of Mac OS than all combined >> versions (distributions) of Linux. >> >> WINE? Is a nice concept. But it will never, again IMO, as long as the >> 'Windows programs' that WINE can run are mostly really old DOS programs. >> >> Sheesh. >> -- >> > > Perhaps you should do a little research before you spout off. Wine is > capable of running very modern day applications that are written for the > windows platform. It is anything but old dos programs. Mr. Keating. May I call you Jessie? I know who you are and I respect you a lot. Would you please name "some very modern day applications that are written for the windows platform" that will run in a Linux current version of WINE? That will run under the currently available WINE in Fedora 11. Names and versions. _Real_ applications. The ones that ordinary 'users' want. Not the geeky ones that 'Linux geeks' want. I am serious here. Really. The names are...? -- David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Jul 11, 2009, at 17:03, David wrote: On 7/11/2009 6:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Frank Murphy wrote: Doesn't seem to work for wine :) That's because WINE is only 32-bit, because most Winblow$ executables are. Kevin Kofler "Winblow$"? You really should learn some control here. The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show respect where respect is warranted. Microsoft should recieve that respect IMO. 90% of the desktop computers in the world use some version of Windows. More desktop computers use some form of Mac OS than all combined versions (distributions) of Linux. WINE? Is a nice concept. But it will never, again IMO, as long as the 'Windows programs' that WINE can run are mostly really old DOS programs. Sheesh. -- Perhaps you should do a little research before you spout off. Wine is capable of running very modern day applications that are written for the windows platform. It is anything but old dos programs. -- Jes -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 7/11/2009 9:27 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 21:17:56 -0400, > David wrote: >> On 7/11/2009 8:27 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 20:03:51 -0400, >>> David wrote: The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show respect where respect is warranted. >>> I'm sure Al Capone got a lot of respect in his day as well. >> >> ;-) >> >> I think that he *demanded* that respect. Deserved? Not really. > > I think the analogy works. > Thought of that way. I agree. -- David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 21:17:56 -0400, David wrote: > On 7/11/2009 8:27 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 20:03:51 -0400, > > David wrote: > >> The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show > >> respect where respect is warranted. > > > > I'm sure Al Capone got a lot of respect in his day as well. > > > ;-) > > I think that he *demanded* that respect. Deserved? Not really. I think the analogy works. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 7/11/2009 8:27 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 20:03:51 -0400, > David wrote: >> The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show >> respect where respect is warranted. > > I'm sure Al Capone got a lot of respect in his day as well. ;-) I think that he *demanded* that respect. Deserved? Not really. -- David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 20:03:51 -0400, David wrote: > > The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show > respect where respect is warranted. I'm sure Al Capone got a lot of respect in his day as well. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 7/11/2009 6:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Frank Murphy wrote: >> Doesn't seem to work for wine :) > > That's because WINE is only 32-bit, because most Winblow$ executables are. > > Kevin Kofler "Winblow$"? You really should learn some control here. The 'real guys'. The developers, code writers, people-in-the-know, show respect where respect is warranted. Microsoft should recieve that respect IMO. 90% of the desktop computers in the world use some version of Windows. More desktop computers use some form of Mac OS than all combined versions (distributions) of Linux. WINE? Is a nice concept. But it will never, again IMO, as long as the 'Windows programs' that WINE can run are mostly really old DOS programs. Sheesh. -- David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
Frank Murphy wrote: > Doesn't seem to work for wine :) That's because WINE is only 32-bit, because most Winblow$ executables are. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: >> On 11/07/09 10:41, Jussi Lehtola wrote: >> >>> >>> The x86_64 repo contains some multilib packages. If you don't specify >>> the wanted architecture when installing, yum might install both 32- and >>> 64-bit versions if available. Try adding the .x86_64 arch specifier, >>> e.g. instead of >>> # yum install foo >>> perform >>> # yum install foo.x86_64 >> >> >> Doesn't seem to work for wine :) >> > > yum install foo > will install foo.x86_64 by default it will only install foo.i586 if > foo.x86_64 when s/if foo.x86_64// ;) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 11/07/09 10:41, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > >> >> The x86_64 repo contains some multilib packages. If you don't specify >> the wanted architecture when installing, yum might install both 32- and >> 64-bit versions if available. Try adding the .x86_64 arch specifier, >> e.g. instead of >> # yum install foo >> perform >> # yum install foo.x86_64 > > > Doesn't seem to work for wine :) > yum install foo will install foo.x86_64 by default it will only install foo.i586 if foo.x86_64 when 1) you do yum install foo and only foo.i586 is in the repo 2) yo do yum install foo.i586 3) if you set "exactarch=0" in /etc/yum.conf (default is 1 which leads to the behavior I explained above) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 11/07/09 10:41, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > > The x86_64 repo contains some multilib packages. If you don't specify > the wanted architecture when installing, yum might install both 32- and > 64-bit versions if available. Try adding the .x86_64 arch specifier, > e.g. instead of > # yum install foo > perform > # yum install foo.x86_64 Doesn't seem to work for wine :) Regards, Frank -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
2009/7/11 Jussi Lehtola : > > The x86_64 repo contains some multilib packages. If you don't specify > the wanted architecture when installing, yum might install both 32- and > 64-bit versions if available. Try adding the .x86_64 arch specifier, > e.g. instead of > # yum install foo > perform > # yum install foo.x86_64 > -- > Jussi Lehtola > Fedora Project Contributor > jussileht...@fedoraproject.org I also noticed this. The problem is that I use the spin-kickstarts files and there groups of files are specified with @core. When the livecd-creator see this, maybe it pulls all files that much the given name regardless of the architecture. But I still cannot explain why when running the livecd and trying to install some of the files (in the first thread), yum still pulls the i586 as dependencies. Should I file a bug against yum (or livecd-creator) so that they respect the given architecture? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 08:38 +0100, Joshua C. wrote: > 2009/7/10 Tom "spot" Callaway : > > On 07/10/2009 05:58 PM, Joshua C. wrote: > >> I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following > >> x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when > >> compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits? > > > > I'm pretty sure you're looking at it wrong. > I don't know but when I try to install one of those x86_64 packages it > pulls the i586 as dependencies. I've pointed all repo files to x86_64 > and I really don't know how and why this happens? The x86_64 repo contains some multilib packages. If you don't specify the wanted architecture when installing, yum might install both 32- and 64-bit versions if available. Try adding the .x86_64 arch specifier, e.g. instead of # yum install foo perform # yum install foo.x86_64 -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
2009/7/10 Tom "spot" Callaway : > On 07/10/2009 05:58 PM, Joshua C. wrote: >> I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following >> x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when >> compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits? >> >> mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 needs >> >> glibc.i686 >> libdrm.i586 >> libdrm-devel.i586 >> nss-softokn-freebl.i586 > >> pulseaudio-module-x11.x86_64 needs >> >> alsa-lib.i586 >> dbus-libs.i586 >> e2fsprogs-libs.i586 >> flac.i586 >> gdbm.i586 >> glibc.i586 >> libICE.i586 >> libSM.i586 >> libX11.i586 >> libXau.i586 >> libXext.i586 >> libXtst.i586 >> libasyncns.i586 >> libattr.i586 >> libcap.i586 >> libgcc.i586 >> libogg.i586 >> libsndfile.i586 >> libstdc++.i586 >> libxcb.i586 >> ncurses-libs.i586 >> nss-softokn-freebl.i586 >> pulseaudio-libs.i586 >> pulseaudio-utils.i586 >> readline.i586 >> sqlite.i586 >> tcp_wrappers-libs.i586 > > I'm pretty sure you're looking at it wrong. > > [s...@velociraptor devel]$ rpm -q mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 --requires > /usr/bin/pkg-config > libGL.so.1()(64bit) > libX11-devel > mesa-libGL = 7.5-0.14.fc11 > pkgconfig(dri2proto) >= 1.99.3 > pkgconfig(libdrm) >= 2.4.3 > pkgconfig(x11) > pkgconfig(xdamage) > pkgconfig(xext) > pkgconfig(xfixes) > pkgconfig(xxf86vm) > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 > > [s...@velociraptor devel]$ rpm -q pulseaudio-module-x11.x86_64 --requires > /bin/sh > config(pulseaudio-module-x11) = 0.9.16-2.test2.fc12 > libICE.so.6()(64bit) > libSM.so.6()(64bit) > libX11.so.6()(64bit) > libXtst.so.6()(64bit) > libasyncns.so.0()(64bit) > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) > libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) > libdl.so.2()(64bit) > libltdl.so.7()(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > liboil-0.3.so.0()(64bit) > libprotocol-native.so()(64bit) > libpthread.so.0()(64bit) > libpulse.so.0()(64bit) > libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) > libpulsecommon-0.9.16.so()(64bit) > libpulsecore-0.9.16.so()(64bit) > librt.so.1()(64bit) > libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit) > libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) > libspeexdsp.so.1()(64bit) > libtdb.so.1()(64bit) > libwrap.so.0()(64bit) > pulseaudio = 0.9.16-2.test2.fc12 > pulseaudio-utils = 0.9.16-2.test2.fc12 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > >> I also found dupllicates of NetworkManager x86_64 and .i586 and >> others. I wanted some -devel packages but I thought only the x86_64 >> versions would be pulled in. >> >> How have this happened? > > Not sure how you managed it, but the packages themselves are correct. > > ~spot > > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > I don't know but when I try to install one of those x86_64 packages it pulls the i586 as dependencies. I've pointed all repo files to x86_64 and I really don't know how and why this happens? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On 07/10/2009 05:58 PM, Joshua C. wrote: > I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following > x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when > compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits? > > mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 needs > > glibc.i686 > libdrm.i586 > libdrm-devel.i586 > nss-softokn-freebl.i586 > pulseaudio-module-x11.x86_64 needs > > alsa-lib.i586 > dbus-libs.i586 > e2fsprogs-libs.i586 > flac.i586 > gdbm.i586 > glibc.i586 > libICE.i586 > libSM.i586 > libX11.i586 > libXau.i586 > libXext.i586 > libXtst.i586 > libasyncns.i586 > libattr.i586 > libcap.i586 > libgcc.i586 > libogg.i586 > libsndfile.i586 > libstdc++.i586 > libxcb.i586 > ncurses-libs.i586 > nss-softokn-freebl.i586 > pulseaudio-libs.i586 > pulseaudio-utils.i586 > readline.i586 > sqlite.i586 > tcp_wrappers-libs.i586 I'm pretty sure you're looking at it wrong. [s...@velociraptor devel]$ rpm -q mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 --requires /usr/bin/pkg-config libGL.so.1()(64bit) libX11-devel mesa-libGL = 7.5-0.14.fc11 pkgconfig(dri2proto) >= 1.99.3 pkgconfig(libdrm) >= 2.4.3 pkgconfig(x11) pkgconfig(xdamage) pkgconfig(xext) pkgconfig(xfixes) pkgconfig(xxf86vm) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 [s...@velociraptor devel]$ rpm -q pulseaudio-module-x11.x86_64 --requires /bin/sh config(pulseaudio-module-x11) = 0.9.16-2.test2.fc12 libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libasyncns.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) liboil-0.3.so.0()(64bit) libprotocol-native.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulsecommon-0.9.16.so()(64bit) libpulsecore-0.9.16.so()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) libspeexdsp.so.1()(64bit) libtdb.so.1()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) pulseaudio = 0.9.16-2.test2.fc12 pulseaudio-utils = 0.9.16-2.test2.fc12 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) > I also found dupllicates of NetworkManager x86_64 and .i586 and > others. I wanted some -devel packages but I thought only the x86_64 > versions would be pulled in. > > How have this happened? Not sure how you managed it, but the packages themselves are correct. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
x86_64 packages depends on i586.
I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits? mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 needs glibc.i686 libdrm.i586 libdrm-devel.i586 nss-softokn-freebl.i586 pulseaudio-module-x11.x86_64 needs alsa-lib.i586 dbus-libs.i586 e2fsprogs-libs.i586 flac.i586 gdbm.i586 glibc.i586 libICE.i586 libSM.i586 libX11.i586 libXau.i586 libXext.i586 libXtst.i586 libasyncns.i586 libattr.i586 libcap.i586 libgcc.i586 libogg.i586 libsndfile.i586 libstdc++.i586 libxcb.i586 ncurses-libs.i586 nss-softokn-freebl.i586 pulseaudio-libs.i586 pulseaudio-utils.i586 readline.i586 sqlite.i586 tcp_wrappers-libs.i586 I also found dupllicates of NetworkManager x86_64 and .i586 and others. I wanted some -devel packages but I thought only the x86_64 versions would be pulled in. How have this happened? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
