Bug 2848

Summary: Wrong 64bit dependency prevents 32bit install/update
Product: Fedora Reporter: onetimeuser
Component: avidemuxAssignee: Richard <hobbes1069>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: major    
Priority: P5    
Version: 17   
Hardware: i386   
OS: GNU/Linux   
namespace:

Description onetimeuser 2013-06-26 03:04:58 CEST
Starting with package version 2.6.4-3 avidemux-help (a noarch package) is requiring avidemux x86-64 as dependency which of course is not available when wanting to install the avidemux x86-32 packages, making installs and updates of said 32bit packages always fail.

A similar report for the Fedora 18 packages exists as well.

$ sudo yum install avidemux-qt
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package avidemux-qt.i686 0:2.6.4-3.fc17 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: avidemux-help = 2.6.4-3.fc17 for package: avidemux-qt-2.6.4-3.fc17.i686
--> Processing Dependency: avidemux-libs(x86-32) = 2.6.4-3.fc17 for package: avidemux-qt-2.6.4-3.fc17.i686
--> Running transaction check
---> Package avidemux-help.noarch 0:2.6.4-3.fc17 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: avidemux(x86-64) = 2.6.4-3.fc17 for package: avidemux-help-2.6.4-3.fc17.noarch
---> Package avidemux-libs.i686 0:2.6.4-3.fc17 will be installed
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
--> Finding unneeded leftover dependencies
Found and removing 0 unneeded dependencies
Error: Package: avidemux-help-2.6.4-3.fc17.noarch (rpmfusion-free-updates)
           Requires: avidemux(x86-64) = 2.6.4-3.fc17
Comment 1 Richard 2013-06-26 03:15:09 CEST
I really appreciate people being willing to fill out bug reports, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do a simple search before filing one.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2840 ***
Comment 2 onetimeuser 2013-06-26 03:17:34 CEST
Sorry, just found that this is an unnecessary duplicate of Bug 2840. Move along, nothing to see here.
Comment 3 onetimeuser 2013-06-26 03:18:00 CEST
Right. Sorry about that. =(
Comment 4 Richard 2013-06-26 03:19:22 CEST
No problem :) You're not alone, just lucky enough to be #6 or so.