I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
Worked like a charm.
However, now that I try to use the resulting system and need a
few packages, I find that installing them is um, ... challenging.
For example, yesterday I
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 14:40 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
Worked like a charm.
However, now that I try to use the resulting system and need a
few packages, I find that
Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 14:40 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
Worked like a charm.
However, now that I try to use the resulting system and need a
few
-Requires: libgomp = %{version}-%{release}
+Requires: libgomp%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Can anyone explain why appending that %{?_isa} notation is necessary?
Because rpm did not adapt appropriately to multilib. Instead
current rpm requires that each packager do the work in each
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 16:13 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Thanks.
Can anyone explain why appending that %{?_isa} notation is necessary?
Shouldn't dependency-tracking tools already know that libgomp is
an arch-dependent binary, and that of course if gcc.x86_64 is depending
on libgomp, it really
On 04/05/2012 05:13 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 14:40 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
Worked like a charm.
However, now that I try to use
On 04/05/2012 05:23 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
The point with %{_isa} in dependency names is that it eliminates the
problematic ambiguity.
Really? I think %{_isa} is harmful, because it breaks arch - noarch
updates, and tries to project depsolver bugs into rpms.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
On 04/05/2012 06:23 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/05/2012 05:13 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Can anyone explain why appending that %{?_isa} notation is necessary?
Shouldn't dependency-tracking tools already know that libgomp is
an arch-dependent binary, and that of course if gcc.x86_64 is
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 14:40 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
Worked like a charm.
[...]
Packages skipped because of dependency problems:
gcc-c++-4.7.0-0.20.fc17.x86_64
James Antill wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 14:40 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I installed x86_64 F17 from the netinst.iso yesterday, selected
a minimal install, and immediately upgraded to rawhide.
Worked like a charm.
[...]
Packages skipped because of dependency problems:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:52 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 16:13 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Thanks.
Can anyone explain why appending that %{?_isa} notation is necessary?
Shouldn't dependency-tracking tools already know that libgomp is
an arch-dependent binary, and that
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:10 -0400, James Antill wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:52 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
So, at least on my F17 machine, gcc looks like this:
black-lotus:~% rpm -q --requires gcc | grep gomp
libgomp = 4.7.0-1.fc17
libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
To me that looks like
Kalev Lember wrote:
It's very understandable why rpm allows this. But yum's depsolver on the
other hand should be tailored to the way Fedora repos are set up and, in
my opinion, not install compat arch packages when it can solve the deps
with the primary arch packages.
The point is that it
James Antill wrote:
Not really, I think the problem is that you installed with F17 and are
now on rawhide, but rawhide has older versions of a bunch of packages.
… which is a blatant violation of upgrade path rules and should be filed as
urgent bugs against the affected packages. We have the
14 matches
Mail list logo
