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 228373 - multi-lib conflicts
Summary: multi-lib conflicts
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: liblo
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Anthony Green
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Whiteboard: bzcl34nup
: 342211 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-02-12 20:15 UTC by Michael Schwendt
Modified: 2008-05-07 01:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-05-07 01:10:13 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Schwendt 2007-02-12 20:15:11 UTC
liblo - 0.23-11.fc6.x86_64
  Conflicts: 32
  File conflict in:
  Packages with the same files:
     liblo - 0.23-11.fc6.i386

Comment 1 Anthony Green 2007-02-21 16:00:35 UTC
I'm not sure what to do about this.  Presumably the conflict arises because the
files generated at build time on x86-64 and x86 are different.  I did a bit of a
search to see what other doxygen-using packages do to sole this, but found
nothing useful.  

The html files have a timestamp in them.  I can force doxygen to use a custom
html footer with no timestamp.  I don't know what the issue with the x86-64 tex
files is.  Could you please send me one of them so I can compare with my x86 tex

Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2007-02-21 18:01:55 UTC
Why not simply move these doc files into the liblo-devel package?
It appears to be development-oriented documentation anyway.

As for examples files, the x86_64 binary rpms are in the public Fedora
Extras for x86_64 repository.

Comment 3 Anthony Green 2007-02-23 00:53:58 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Why not simply move these doc files into the liblo-devel package?
> It appears to be development-oriented documentation anyway.

I agree these should go in the -devel package, so I'll do that - but doesn't
that just mean the conflict moves to the -devel packages?

Comment 4 Michael Schwendt 2007-02-23 10:58:01 UTC
Yes, but generally for many -devel packages a multi-compat conflict
is natural because of arch-dependent definitions in include files, for
example, which would be less easy to fix. Hence there are many other
-devel packages (also in Core) which conflict in their include files.
Further, -devel packages are more optional than multi-compat shared
library or application packages.

Anyway, I don't make the policies. And I don't mind if you want to
keep this ticket open until a multi-lib strategy is known.

Comment 5 Anthony Green 2007-02-23 16:44:34 UTC
Ok, I'll keep it open.  In the meanwhile I've moved these docs to the -devel
package for FC-6 and rawhide.  Should we remove the FE7Target dependency?

Comment 6 Anthony Green 2008-01-03 19:19:12 UTC
*** Bug 342211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Bug Zapper 2008-04-03 19:07:04 UTC
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported
against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no
longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are
flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer
maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now,
we will automatically close it.

If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or
rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change
the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version
or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.)

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we're following is outlined here:

We will be following the process here: to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

Comment 8 Bug Zapper 2008-05-07 01:10:11 UTC
This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than 30 days since feedback was
first requested. As a result we are closing it.

If you can reproduce this bug in the future against a maintained Fedora
version please feel free to reopen it against that version.

The process we're following is outlined here:

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