[Fedora-packaging] FESCo notes on OCaml guidelines change

Chuck Anderson cra at WPI.EDU
Fri Mar 14 04:25:49 UTC 2008

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:52AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jason L Tibbitts III (tibbs at math.uh.edu) said: 
> > I guess I'm really having trouble coming to grips with multilib,
> > because I see that the ocaml modules are not multilib while the -devel
> > packages are.  In fact, the only ocaml i386 packages I see in current
> > rawhide x86_64 are -devel packages of modules.  Is something broken
> > with the rawhide repo generation, am I just confused as to how you
> > could ever install those -devel modules without matching arch versions
> > of the non-devel packages, or are we perhaps seeing the problem under
> > discussion in action?
> Packages are pulled in as multilib either from being named -devel,
> or bevcause they package something obviously determinable as a 'library'.
> I suspect the modules don't appear to be libraries.

Is there something wrong with the process that pulls in multilib then?  
sane-backends-libs-gphoto2 x86_64 repo deps have been broken for a 
long time due to missing the i386 package in the x86_64 repo.  For 
reference, here are the contents of the two packages:

>rpm -qvpl sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.19-7.fc9.x86_64.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root    root               25 Mar 10 12:53 /usr/lib64/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1 -> libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root            37248 Mar 10 12:53 /usr/lib64/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19

>rpm -qvpl sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.19-7.fc9.i386.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root    root               25 Mar 10 12:58 /usr/lib/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1 -> libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root            33772 Mar 10 12:58 /usr/lib/sane/libsane-gphoto2.so.1.0.19

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list