Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 152944 - Package with both 32bit and 64 Bit
Summary: Package with both 32bit and 64 Bit
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: firefox
Version: 3
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Christopher Aillon
QA Contact:
Depends On:
Blocks: 157692
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-03-31 04:43 UTC by Falko Pilz (privat)
Modified: 2018-04-11 08:41 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-08-28 14:51:34 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Falko Pilz (privat) 2005-03-31 04:43:30 UTC
Description of problem:
The problem is, Firefox.x86_64 has nearly no plugins available. But he 
conflicts at /usr/bin/firefox with firefox.i386. So if you don't want an
conflict in your rpm-database you should choose one of them. But I would test
both at my web applikations.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
all until yet (4test1)

Actual results:
Only one could cleanly be installed

Expected results:
A rpm should exist were both are awailable so that /usr/bin/firefox and may be
called /usr/bin/firefox64 exists. And both pakages called above are mixed in.

Other way use alternatives and let the real binary stay at /usr/lib and
/usr/lib64 so no rpm conflict does exists.

Okay as third the /usr/bin64 discussion still exists...

Comment 1 Bojan Smojver 2005-05-02 23:13:03 UTC
I guess one or the other would be an OK choice. At present, only 64-bit version
is provided, which isn't very useful if one wants to run Flash, Java or
something else. The only choice is to pull i386 package from i386 version of FC.
Not convenient...

BTW, this bug should be attached to the devel tree, as this is where the
situation still exists.

Comment 2 Alexandre Oliva 2005-05-13 19:50:42 UTC
Even if the conflict is resolved in the firefox script, it would be nice to have
some way for users to choose which version of firefox to run, such that you
could install both firefox.x86_64 and firefox.i386 side by side.  The current
script simply tests for /usr/lib64 and uses that if it's present, but this is
clearly far from ideal if you get past the install conflicts and want to run the
32-bit firefox.

Incidentally, yum will not install one firefox arch if the other it installed,
but rather replace one with the other, whereas rpm has no problem installing
them both in parallel.  Presumably this has to do with the conflicts in
/usr/bin/firefox.  I haven't tried to get yum to install both at the same time yet.

The other negative point is that firefox.i386 and its deps are not in the x86_64
distro, so, in order to get them installed and kept up-to-date, one has to add
the entire i386 channels to the collection of repositories yum or up2date use. 
Ideally, they'd be included in the x86_64 repositories, for a mere extra 13MB.

Comment 3 Matthew Miller 2006-07-10 20:28:09 UTC
Fedora Core 3 is now maintained by the Fedora Legacy project for security
updates only. If this problem is a security issue, please reopen and
reassign to the Fedora Legacy product. If it is not a security issue and
hasn't been resolved in the current FC5 updates or in the FC6 test
release, reopen and change the version to match.

Thank you!

Comment 4 Matěj Cepl 2007-07-18 17:23:35 UTC
Distribution against which this bug was reported is no longer supported; could
you please reproduce this with the updated version of the currently supported
distribution (Fedora Core 6, or Fedora 7, or Rawhide)? If this issue turns out
to still be reproducible, please let us know in this bug report.  If after a
month's time we have not heard back from you, we will have to close this bug as

Setting status to NEEDINFO, and awaiting information from the reporter.

Thanks in advance.

Comment 5 Matěj Cepl 2007-08-28 14:51:34 UTC
We haven't got any reply to the last question about reproducability of the bug
with Fedora Core 6, Fedora 7, or Fedora devel. Mass closing this bug, so if you
have new information that would help us fix this bug, please reopen it with the
additional information.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.