Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64

[Orion Poplawski]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:51:40 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> 
>>
>> Alternatively, the question is "Why do these packages need 
>> libpython24.so.1.0  and is that proper?"
> 
> With BR python-devel and a file /usr/lib/k3d/libk3dpython.so.* that
> looks very much like it's a k3d plugin for Python scripting support.

Well, in my case (plplot), plplot-devel provides:

/usr/lib/libcsirocsa.so
/usr/lib/libcsironn.so
/usr/lib/libplplotcxxd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf77cd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf77d.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf95cd.so
/usr/lib/libplplotf95d.so

None of which require libpython2.4.so.1.0.  However plplot-devel does 
require plplot, which also provides:

/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_plplotcmodule.so
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/plplot_widgetmodule.so

which do require it.  So in this case it seems like the thing to do 
might be to move the first libraries into plplot-libs, and have 
plplot-devel require that, not plplot, much like you pointed out with k3d.

So the answer to the above question may be, "No, it's not proper.  Fix 
your packages so the -devel packages don't require libpython2.4.so.1.0".

-- 
Orion Poplawski
System Administrator                  303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion at cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com