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 455875 - debuginfo-install confused by architecture differences
Summary: debuginfo-install confused by architecture differences
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: yum-utils
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Seth Vidal
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2008-07-18 15:12 UTC by Christopher Beland
Modified: 2014-01-21 06:10 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-01-16 19:16:05 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christopher Beland 2008-07-18 15:12:33 UTC
I have glibc-debuginfo-2.8-3.i686 and glibc-2.8-3.i686 installed.  I ran the
command "debuginfo-install `rpm -qa`" so I could be guaranteed of producing
useful stack traces in the event of a program crash.  This process downloads
over 700 packages, and then fails with the below errors.  It seems like
debuginfo-install should be able to figure out which architecture is needed;
isn't that important for debugging?


Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/debuginfo-install", line 124, in <module>
    util = DebugInfoInstall()
  File "/usr/bin/debuginfo-install", line 42, in __init__
  File "/usr/bin/debuginfo-install", line 82, in main
  File "/usr/share/yum-cli/", line 408, in doTransaction
yum.Errors.YumBaseError: Transaction Check Error:
  package glibc-debuginfo-2.8-3.i386 is already installed
  file /usr/lib/debug/lib/ from install of
glibc-debuginfo-2.8-3.i386 conflicts with file from package

This is with yum-utils-1.1.14-4.fc9.noarch

Comment 1 Christopher Beland 2009-01-16 06:38:35 UTC
Now with yum-utils-1.1.19-1.fc11.noarch:

* If I do "debuginfo-install glibc-2.9.90-2.i686", I get:

Could not find debuginfo for main pkg: glibc-2.9.90-2.i686
Could not find debuginfo pkg for dependency package glibc-2.9.90-2.i686
(repeated lots of times)

* If I do "debuginfo-install glibc-2.9.90-2.x86_64", I get:

 glibc-debuginfo      x86_64      2.9.90-2         rawhide-debuginfo       22 M

"uname -a" reports:

Linux free-spin.localdomain 2.6.29-0.28.rc1.fc11.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jan 11 20:52:37 EST 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

This is a 64-bit machine, but doesn't it need to be able to install the 32-bit debuginfo packages in parallel?

Comment 2 James Antill 2009-01-16 16:00:43 UTC
Fedora doesn't ship multilib. debuginfo, so there's nolthing yum can do.
Is the first bug in this BZ still unfixed?

Comment 3 Christopher Beland 2009-01-16 17:56:11 UTC
The conflict problem is fixed; "debuginfo-install `rpm -qa`" works in current Rawhide.

So, if there is a crash in a 32-bit program, will it be undiagnosable due to lack of debugging symbols?  I suppose all of the Fedora code is available in 64 bits; the only stuff I have installed 32-bit is Adobe Acrobat and Flash.

I also get a ton of warnings from "debuginfo-install `rpm -qa`" for noarch packages; should I just ignore them, or should debuginfo-install handle them more gracefully?

Comment 4 James Antill 2009-01-16 19:16:05 UTC
Yeh, and in theory you can create a secdon debuginfo repo. pointing to the 32 one ... although probably noone tests how well that works.

Instead of warnings what would you like, no warning? Even though you've asked it to do something it can't?

You can also do either of:

 debuginfo-install \*
 debuginfo-install \*.x86_64

Comment 5 seth vidal 2009-01-16 19:20:00 UTC
keeping the warnings makes sense to me.

At the very least so someone who intentionally does:

debuginfo-install yum

can understand a little bit why it did nothing.

Comment 6 Christopher Beland 2009-01-16 19:50:50 UTC
OK, sounds like the best we can do for now, other than documenting that this is normal.  I've filed that request under bug 480385.  Thanks for your advice!

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