glibc-headers RPM bug? (was: Re: Kernel dependency issues)

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Fri Dec 12 20:43:04 UTC 2008


On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:13:21 -0500, Christopher wrote:
>> 
>>>> I'm surprised one can "rpm -e glibc-headers" while keeping glibc-devel
>>>> That looks a bit strange.
>>> 
>>> I'll leave you to file a bug on that if you think it's wrong.
>> 
>> If it were that easy:
>>
>>  $ rpm -qR glibc-devel|grep ^glib
>>  glibc = 2.9-2
>>  glibc-headers = 2.9-2
>> 
>> So, glibc-devel requires glibc-headers.
>>
>>  $ rpm -q --provides glibc-headers
>>  glibc-headers(i386)
>>  glibc-headers = 2.9-2
>>  glibc-headers(x86-32) = 2.9-2
>>
>>  $ rpm -q --whatprovides glibc-headers
>>  glibc-headers-2.9-2.i386
>>
>>  $ sudo rpm -e glibc-headers
>> 
>> Uh? That should not have been possible, because now:
>>
>>  $ rpm -V glibc-devel
>>  Unsatisfied dependencies for glibc-devel-2.9-2.i386:
>>          glibc-headers = 2.9-2 is needed by glibc-devel-2.9-2.i386
>> 
>> Can anyone reproduce this? Surely I cannot file a bug about glibc. This
>> looks more like a bug in RPM. F10 here, btw.
>
> it's a Requires(Pre) thats allowing it to happen.

Yup, just checked (from F-10 glibc.spec):

%package devel
Summary: Object files for development using standard C libraries.
Group: Development/Libraries
Requires(pre): /sbin/install-info
Requires(pre): %{name}-headers = %{version}-%{release}

>
> Try it with xorg-x11-filesystem
>
> rpm -e xorg-x11-filesystem
> rpm -Va --nofiles --nomd5
>
> notice the broken deps :(

It's actually the verification which is showing bogus results here 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=223642) wrt rpm semantics: 
"Requires(pre): pkg1" means "pkg1" is required to be present during 
execution of %pre scriptlet of the package and nothing else. It does not 
imply "Requires: pkg1", that would have to be separately added if pkg1 is 
needed during installation *and* runtime.

Whether this is sane behavior is debatable, and has been debated several 
times in various places...

 	- Panu -




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list