broken deps outside of packagers control
Michael Schwendt
bugs.michael at gmx.net
Wed Apr 18 14:14:08 UTC 2007
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:32:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 18.04.2007 15:26, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > [...]
> > This raises 2 issues:
... which could have been posted in a less reproachful way.
> > 1 Notice how the deps are only broken for the i386 version in the x86_64 tree,
> > this is something outside my control. If script XXX decides to put a i386
> > gnumeric in the x86_64 tree, then the script should also make sure it puts in
> > all need deps from the i386 tree
It does. But Core and Extras are not merged yet, so it cannot do anything
inside the Core repo.
> perl.i386 was in the Core tree but got removed without proper
> announcement/discussion beforehand (and even worse: that happened on the
> day of the feature freeze). See
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-April/msg01004.html
Also note that if gaim had stayed in Core, it would now be broken in Core
x86_64 due to this removal of perl.i386. [FC6 ships gaim.i386 and perl.i386
for x86_64]
> > 2 Why does the script put the i386 version of gnumeric (an application) in
> > the x86_64 tree at all? That just doesn't make sense.
>
> I assume because there is a gnumeric-devel (the multilib-magic scripts
> afaik try to track in most of the devel packages, which thus tracks in
> the main package normally, too).
Yes. And that means, this issue is _not_ "outside packager's control",
because in most of the cases the packager *could* split off a sub-package
and adjust the -devel pkg requirements accordingly.
However, (!) whether this is the way to go with these broken deps this
time, too, or whether to exclude them from the multi-lib pushscript,
needs further investigation.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list