xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-22 Thread Braden McDaniel 
Is this as it should be?

Dependencies Resolved



 Package   Arch Version 
Repository

   Size


Updating:
 xulrunner x86_64   1.9.1.1-1.fc11  updates 
  9.5 M
Installing for dependencies:
 GConf2i586 2.26.2-1.fc11   updates 
  1.7 M
 ORBit2i586 2.14.17-1.fc11  fedora  
  186 k
 PolicyKit i586 0.9-6.fc11  fedora  
  165 k
 alsa-lib  i586 1.0.20-1.fc11   fedora  
  419 k
 atk   i586 1.25.2-2.fc11   fedora  
  222 k
 audit-libsi586 1.7.13-1.fc11   updates 
   83 k
 avahi i586 0.6.25-3.fc11   updates 
  292 k
 avahi-glibi586 0.6.25-3.fc11   updates 
   19 k
 bzip2-libsi586 1.0.5-5.fc11fedora  
   39 k
 cairo i586 1.8.8-1.fc11updates 
  514 k
 cracklib  i586 2.8.13-4fedora  
   50 k
 cups-libs i586 1:1.4-0.b2.18.fc11  fedora  
  341 k
 cyrus-sasl-libi586 2.1.22-22.fc11  fedora  
  145 k
 db4   i586 4.7.25-11.fc11  fedora  
  669 k
 dbus-glib i586 0.80-2.fc11 fedora  
  178 k
 dbus-libs i586 1:1.2.12-2.fc11 updates 
  132 k
 e2fsprogs-libsi586 1.41.4-10.fc11  fedora  
  154 k
 expat i586 2.0.1-6 fedora  
   86 k
 fontconfigi586 2.6.99.behdad.20090508-1.fc11   fedora  
  203 k
 freetype  i586 2.3.9-3.fc11fedora  
  388 k
 gamin i586 0.1.10-4.fc11   fedora  
  134 k
 glib2 i586 2.20.4-1.fc11   updates 
  1.5 M
 glibc i686 2.10.1-2fedora  
  5.8 M
 gnome-vfs2i586 2.24.1-2.fc11   fedora  
  947 k
 gnutlsi586 2.6.6-1.fc11fedora  
  379 k
 gtk2  i586 2.16.2-1.fc11   updates 
  4.3 M
 hal-libs  i586 0.5.12-26.20090226git.fc11  fedora  
   70 k
 jasper-libs   i586 1.900.1-10.fc11 fedora  
  155 k
 keyutils-libs i586 1.2-5.fc11  fedora  
   19 k
 krb5-libs i586 1.6.3-20.fc11   fedora  
  705 k
 libICEi586 1.0.4-7.fc11fedora  
   55 k
 libIDLi586 0.8.13-1.fc11   fedora  
   89 k
 libSM i586 1.1.0-4.fc11fedora  
   27 k
 libX11i586 1.2.1-2.fc11updates 
  1.0 M
 libXaui586 1.0.4-5.fc11fedora  
   21 k
 libXcomposite i586 0.4.0-7.fc11fedora  
   16 k
 libXcursori586 1.1.9-4.fc11fedora  
   30 k
 libXdamagei586 1.1.1-6.fc11fedora  
   12 k
 libXext   i586 1.0.99.1-2.fc11 fedora  
   35 k
 libXfixes i586 4.0.3-5.fc11fedora  
   16 k
 libXfti586 2.1.13-2.fc11   fedora  
   52 k
 libXi i586 1.2.1-1.fc11fedora  
   32 k
 libXinerama   i586 1.0.3-4.fc11fedora  
   14 k
 libXrandr i586 1.2.99.4-3.fc11 fedora  
   31 k
 libXrenderi586 0.9.4-5.fc11fedora  
   30 k
 libXt i586 1.0.5-2.fc11fedora  
  182 k
 libacli586 2.2.47-4.fc11   fedora  
   24 k
 libattr   i586 2.4.43-3.fc11   fedora  
   15 k
 libbonobo i586 2.24.1-1.fc11   fedora  
  487 k
 libcapi586 2.16-4.fc11.1   upda

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Mamoru Tasaka 
Braden McDaniel wrote, at 07/23/2009 03:38 PM +9:00:
> Is this as it should be?
> 
> Dependencies Resolved
> 
> 
> 
>  Package   Arch Version 
> Repository
>   
>  Size
> 
> 
> Updating:
>  xulrunner x86_64   1.9.1.1-1.fc11  
> updates   9.5 M
> Installing for dependencies:
>  GConf2i586 2.26.2-1.fc11   
> updates   1.7 M
>  ORBit2i586 2.14.17-1.fc11  
> fedora186 k



>  xulrunner i586 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11   
> fedora 10 M
>  zlib  i586 1.2.3-22.fc11   
> fedora 75 k
> Updating for dependencies:



>  epiphany  x86_64   2.26.3-1.fc11   
> updates   4.9 M
>  epiphany-extensions   x86_64   2.26.1-4.fc11   
> updates   1.0 M
>  glib2 x86_64   2.20.4-1.fc11   
> updates   1.6 M
>  glib2-devel   x86_64   2.20.4-1.fc11   
> updates   1.3 M
>  pango x86_64   1.24.4-1.fc11   
> updates   407 k
>  pango-devel   x86_64   1.24.4-1.fc11   
> updates   321 k
>  xulrunner-devel   x86_64   1.9.1.1-1.fc11  
> updates   3.9 M

rel-eng team is now working on this:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2008

Regards,
Mamoru
 

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Braden McDaniel 
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 23:26 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:

[snip]

> rel-eng team is now working on this:
> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2008

Er... So why did a missing update result in pulling down i586 packages
rather than a dependency check failure?

-- 
Braden McDaniel 

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Seth Vidal 



On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:


On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 23:26 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:

[snip]


rel-eng team is now working on this:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2008


Er... So why did a missing update result in pulling down i586 packages
rather than a dependency check failure?



if I had to guess it worked like this:

the dep was provided by two pkgs - the i586 one and the x86_64 one.

but the dep itself was not arch-specific.

So yum said: I can only find an i586 pkg providing this, so I'll install 
that.


Normally yum would say: I have an i586 and an x86_64 pkg - x86_64 is 
better if: (the requiring package is also x86_64 or if the system is an 
x86_64)


but in this case it could not and it satisfied the dep however it could.

-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Braden McDaniel 
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:41 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 23:26 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> rel-eng team is now working on this:
> >> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2008
> >
> > Er... So why did a missing update result in pulling down i586 packages
> > rather than a dependency check failure?
> >
> 
> if I had to guess it worked like this:
> 
> the dep was provided by two pkgs - the i586 one and the x86_64 one.
> 
> but the dep itself was not arch-specific.
> 
> So yum said: I can only find an i586 pkg providing this, so I'll install 
> that.
> 
> Normally yum would say: I have an i586 and an x86_64 pkg - x86_64 is 
> better if: (the requiring package is also x86_64 or if the system is an 
> x86_64)
> 
> but in this case it could not and it satisfied the dep however it could.

Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?  How
do we fix that?

-- 
Braden McDaniel 

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Seth Vidal 



On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:



Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?


Not necessarily.


 How  do we fix that?


%{__isa} istr.

-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Michael Schwendt 
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:57 -0400, Braden wrote:

> Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?  How
> do we fix that?

You could make it arch-specific by depending on gecko-libs%{?_isa} = ...

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Braden McDaniel 
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:59 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> 
> >
> > Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?
> 
> Not necessarily.

Well, there are a few more candidate dependencies; but that seems like
the most likely one.

Or did you have something else in mind?

> >  How  do we fix that?
> 
> %{__isa} istr.

Well, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if no one using gecko-libs
does that; though if what you're suggesting is correct, I suspect nearly
everyone needs to.

But why does yum assume that a dependency of an x86_64 package can be
satisfied by an i586 one?

-- 
Braden McDaniel 

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Seth Vidal 



On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:


 How  do we fix that?


%{__isa} istr.


Well, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if no one using gecko-libs
does that; though if what you're suggesting is correct, I suspect nearly
everyone needs to.

But why does yum assume that a dependency of an x86_64 package can be
satisfied by an i586 one?


Why not?

If something requires FOO and something else provides FOO - what 
difference does it make if it is from another arch as long as the arch is 
compatible with the system?


-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Seth Vidal 



On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:


On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:57 -0400, Braden wrote:


Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?  How
do we fix that?


You could make it arch-specific by depending on gecko-libs%{?_isa} = ...



yah - I said it with two _'s not one. my mistake.

-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Matthew Woehlke 

Seth Vidal wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:

But why does yum assume that a dependency of an x86_64 package can be
satisfied by an i586 one?


Why not?

If something requires FOO and something else provides FOO - what 
difference does it make if it is from another arch as long as the arch 
is compatible with the system?


That only works if FOO is an executable and not a library, no?

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
"What is a release plan, anyway?" -- Oswald Buddenhagen
  ...who I'm sure did not mean it seriously ;-)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Seth Vidal 



On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Matthew Woehlke wrote:


Seth Vidal wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:

But why does yum assume that a dependency of an x86_64 package can be
satisfied by an i586 one?


Why not?

If something requires FOO and something else provides FOO - what difference 
does it make if it is from another arch as long as the arch is compatible 
with the system?


That only works if FOO is an executable and not a library, no?


libraries that are auto-prov'd - will get arch-specifc on their own.

-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-07-23 Thread Braden McDaniel 

On 7/23/09 2:50 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:



On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Matthew Woehlke wrote:


Seth Vidal wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:

But why does yum assume that a dependency of an x86_64 package can be
satisfied by an i586 one?


Why not?

If something requires FOO and something else provides FOO - what
difference does it make if it is from another arch as long as the
arch is compatible with the system?


That only works if FOO is an executable and not a library, no?


libraries that are auto-prov'd - will get arch-specifc on their own.


Which isn't the case for gecko-libs; or for anything that's getting 
dlopen'd.  The packaging guidelines probably need to raise the 
visibility of this issue.


--
Braden McDaniel  e-mail: 
   Jabber: 

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-08-17 Thread Braden McDaniel 

On 7/23/09 12:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:57 -0400, Braden wrote:


Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?  How
do we fix that?


You could make it arch-specific by depending on gecko-libs%{?_isa} = ...


This doesn't Just Work; it seems that the provider of gecko-libs needs 
to make it arch-specific as well.


I've filed bug 517665 against xulrunner and bug 517666 against 
java-1.6.0-openjdk.


--
Braden McDaniel  e-mail: 
   Jabber: 

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-08-17 Thread Michael Schwendt 
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:17:55 -0400, Braden wrote:

> On 7/23/09 12:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:57 -0400, Braden wrote:
> >
> >> Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?  How
> >> do we fix that?
> >
> > You could make it arch-specific by depending on gecko-libs%{?_isa} = ...
> 
> This doesn't Just Work; it seems that the provider of gecko-libs needs 
> to make it arch-specific as well.
> 
> I've filed bug 517665 against xulrunner and bug 517666 against 
> java-1.6.0-openjdk.

Yes, the %{?_isa} Provides get automatically created (even for F11) for
physical packages, 

  $ rpm -q --provides gtk2|grep ^gtk
  gtk2 = 2.16.5-1.fc11
  gtk2(x86-32) = 2.16.5-1.fc11

but not for virtual ones. gecko-libs and gecko-devel are *still* only
virtual packages defined manually within the xulrunner.spec

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages

2009-09-10 Thread Braden McDaniel 
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 07:28 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:17:55 -0400, Braden wrote:
> 
> > On 7/23/09 12:13 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:57 -0400, Braden wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is the problem that the gecko-libs dependency is not arch-specific?  How
> > >> do we fix that?
> > >
> > > You could make it arch-specific by depending on gecko-libs%{?_isa} = ...
> > 
> > This doesn't Just Work; it seems that the provider of gecko-libs needs 
> > to make it arch-specific as well.
> > 
> > I've filed bug 517665 against xulrunner and bug 517666 against 
> > java-1.6.0-openjdk.
> 
> Yes, the %{?_isa} Provides get automatically created (even for F11) for
> physical packages, 
> 
>   $ rpm -q --provides gtk2|grep ^gtk
>   gtk2 = 2.16.5-1.fc11
>   gtk2(x86-32) = 2.16.5-1.fc11
> 
> but not for virtual ones. gecko-libs and gecko-devel are *still* only
> virtual packages defined manually within the xulrunner.spec

So is there a reason why that must be the case?

It's been suggested (by Christopher Aillon in bug 517665) that not
automatically generating the arch-specific provides is a bug in
rpmbuild.

-- 
Braden McDaniel 

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list