Bug 2551

Summary: x86_64 repo does not contain i686 dependencies of added i686 -devel packages
Product: Infrastructure Reporter: IFo Hancroft <acidcore.15>
Component: RepoAssignee: Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: major CC: hans, matthias, mschwendt
Priority: P5    
Version: NA   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: GNU/Linux   
namespace:

Description IFo Hancroft 2012-10-30 19:47:45 CET
sudo yum install opencore-amr-devel.i686
    Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
    Resolving Dependencies
    --> Running transaction check
    ---> Package opencore-amr-devel.i686 0:0.1.3-2.fc17 will be installed
    --> Processing Dependency: libopencore-amrnb.so.0 for package: opencore-amr-devel-0.1.3-2.fc17.i686
    --> Processing Dependency: libopencore-amrwb.so.0 for package: opencore-amr-devel-0.1.3-2.fc17.i686
    --> Finished Dependency Resolution
    Error: Package: opencore-amr-devel-0.1.3-2.fc17.i686 (rpmfusion-free)
    Requires: libopencore-amrnb.so.0
    Error: Package: opencore-amr-devel-0.1.3-2.fc17.i686 (rpmfusion-free)
    Requires: libopencore-amrwb.so.0
    You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
    ** Found 1 pre-existing rpmdb problem(s), 'yum check' output follows:
    msttcorefonts-1.3-4.noarch has missing requires of /usr/sbin/chkfontpath
Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2012-11-03 20:32:25 CET
That is weird, those dependencies are provided by the opencore-amr package, so if you do (as you seem to have done):
yum install opencore-amr-devel

Then yum should automatically figure out to add opencore-amr to the transaction, and things should work fine.

Can you make sure al your repositories are set up in a sane way, and then do:
yum clean all

And try again ?

Also are you by any chance using any other third party repositories, or just fedora + updates and rpmfusion + updates ?
Comment 2 IFo Hancroft 2012-11-07 06:32:37 CET
I actually already have opencore-amr install but still get that error when trying to install opencore-amr-devel-i686 (the 64bit version installs without any problems though)

Can you please define what do you mean by set in a sane way?

I have already tried yum clean all (And I get the same error)

And no, I am not using any other repositories other than fedora + update and rpmfusion free and none free + updates
Comment 3 Hans de Goede 2012-11-10 17:17:16 CET
Ah you're right, looking here:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/17/Everything/x86_64/os/

It seems that the repo generation for multi-lib is wrong, the i686 versions of -devel packages are being added
(as intended) but their dependencies are not added!
Comment 4 Nicolas Chauvet 2012-11-10 17:33:33 CET
Please note that there is no CVS action to take.
Unfortunately the multilibs script is indeed broken for release as for updates-testing.
The i686 packages was manually copied into the x86_64 directory to workaround this.
Unfortunately this late fix is unlikely to happen for such frozen released branch.
Comment 5 Hans de Goede 2012-11-10 17:37:46 CET
(In reply to comment #4)
> Please note that there is no CVS action to take.
> Unfortunately the multilibs script is indeed broken for release as for
> updates-testing.
> The i686 packages was manually copied into the x86_64 directory to workaround
> this.
> Unfortunately this late fix is unlikely to happen for such frozen released
> branch.

Hmm, could we then maybe copy the missing deps to the updates repo instead? It would be a bit weird to have the -devel ones in the frozen branch and the deps in updates, but it should work.

Alternatively, if things indeed do work properly for updates, I could just bump and rebuild ...
Comment 6 Nicolas Chauvet 2012-11-11 11:06:43 CET
Can anyone make the whole list of i686 dependendencies missing from the free/nonfree release tree ?
Comment 7 IFo Hancroft 2012-11-11 14:37:00 CET
It is weird that I didn't realise it at first before you answered here that I see the i686 version of the devel package when for opencore-amr itself i only see the x86_64 version.
Comment 8 Nicolas Chauvet 2012-11-11 14:50:59 CET
(In reply to comment #7)
> It is weird that I didn't realise it at first before you answered here that I
> see the i686 version of the devel package when for opencore-amr itself i only
> see the x86_64 version.
That's well understood, now I need to complete list of the missing i686 version in x86_64 repo.
Basically mean for earch foo-devel.i686.rpm there is likely a i686.rpm with name either foo-libs.i686 or foo.i686.

I need the list of the missing ones, as I don' thave time to seek.
Comment 9 IFo Hancroft 2012-11-11 16:14:42 CET
Well from can I [if there is such] get a list with all the i686 files in the repo so I can start looking?
Comment 10 Michael Schwendt 2012-11-17 22:40:20 CET
> Unfortunately the multilibs script is indeed broken for release
> as for updates-testing.

If you mean the configuration file that has been set up, that is what is broken most likely. In several bz posts before, I have commented on potential mistakes to watch out for (especially after the transition of Fedora 17 to a new download dir layout), but there is no progress, and the config files have not been published anywhere either. Many months (years?) have passed.
Comment 11 IFo Hancroft 2012-11-19 23:06:49 CET
I think TwoLAME.i686 is also missing since when I type in TwoLAME in the software manager I see TwoLAME, TwoLAME-libs and TwoLAME-devel and everything has both 64 and 32 bit version except TwoLAME
Comment 12 Michael Schwendt 2012-11-19 23:39:56 CET
twolame-devel only requires twolame-libs, so the default multilib policy does not pull in twolame
Comment 13 Nicolas Chauvet 2013-02-05 13:41:38 CET
This should be fixed for f18 and later.