On 7/23/09 2:50 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>>> But why does yum assume that a dependency of an x86_64 package can be
>>> satisfied by an i586 one?
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> If something requires FOO and something else provides FOO - what
>> difference does it make if it is from another arch as long as the
>> arch is compatible with the system?
>
> That only works if FOO is an executable and not a library, no?
libraries that are auto-prov'd - will get arch-specifc on their own.
Which isn't the case for gecko-libs; or for anything that's getting
dlopen'd. The packaging guidelines probably need to raise the
visibility of this issue.
--
Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden(a)endoframe.com>
<
http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden(a)jabber.org>