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 153129 - Requires: startup-notification and libgcj under x86_64 worthless to pull in correct dependancies
Summary: Requires: startup-notification and libgcj under x86_64 worthless to pull in c...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Caolan McNamara
QA Contact:
: 151578 153128 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: FC4Blocker
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-04-01 19:22 UTC by Matthias Clasen
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 1.9.89-4
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-04-06 15:42:48 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matthias Clasen 2005-04-01 19:22:03 UTC
Even after fixing the missing java runtime problem, openoffice does not start.
It says "no suitable windowing system found, exiting."

This is with 1.9.88-4

Comment 1 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-02 11:03:41 UTC
ok, so...

rpm -qRp  | grep startup-notification

a) do you have the i386 startup-notification installed ? 
b) if not, does adding the i386 one sort things out ? 
c) If that's whats happening, then the i386 one is not getting pulled in by the
Requires, so is that a flaw on myside somehow, or somewhere else ?

Comment 2 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-05 12:26:44 UTC
*** Bug 153128 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-05 12:30:23 UTC
i386 Requires: startup-notification and libgcj but under x86_64
the i386 packages dependancies on these two packages *seems* to get fufilled by
the 64bit equivalents, and rpm doesn't demand the i386 packages to be installed
before allowing OOo to be installed. Which I assume it should do ?

Manually added the two i386 packages reportedly makes the problem go away.

Comment 4 Paul Nasrat 2005-04-05 12:52:59 UTC
Requires: name will be met by the provides from the x86_64 package - you're
getting what you asked for as by package name does not imply anything about
arch.  You could be asking for helper programs/script requirements rather than
libs where the arch of the required package doesn't matter.  

For startup-notification it seems that eg is not +x so
rpm auto requires isn't adding a coloured lib requirement for vs you
could Requires: which will get 32 bit
startup-notification everywhere.  Likewise adding Requires: and
keeping the Requires: libgcj >= 4.0.0 should work for 32bit libgcj.

Is there any reason those files aren't executable so rpm library
provides/requires work?  chmod in %install and use %attr to reset another option.

Comment 5 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-05 13:09:04 UTC
fair enough will do. Though no-one else seems to know that this is how the
multilib stuff works probably similiar problems spread throughout our rpms. All
the .sos are dlopened by OOo, they've never apparently been +x upstream.

Comment 6 Dan Williams 2005-04-05 13:33:33 UTC
Note that for 1.1.x I had to do the following at the end of the %install section
a very long time ago:

# Make shared libraries executable so we can pull debuginfo from them
chmod +wx %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{ooo_install_dir}/program/*so*
chmod +wx %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{ooo_install_dir}/program/filter/*so*
chmod +w  %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{ooo_install_dir}/program/*.bin
chmod +w  %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{ooo_install_dir}/program/regcomp \
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{ooo_install_dir}/program/pagein		\
		%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{ooo_install_dir}/program/ooovirg		\

Comment 7 Dan Williams 2005-04-05 13:35:15 UTC
It seems that +x is needed for more things than debuginfo I guess.

Comment 8 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-05 17:13:51 UTC
will do for 1.9.89-4

Comment 9 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-06 15:42:48 UTC
> rpm -qRp | grep startup
> rpm -qRp | grep libgcj

That should do it if I understand things correctly now.

Comment 10 Caolan McNamara 2005-04-06 17:00:10 UTC
*** Bug 151578 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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