Re: [Repost] What is "Error: Protected multilib versions"

[Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 23:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> John Reiser wrote:
> > Or, some packager forgot to use %{?_isa} when specifying package
> > dependencies which are [or become] architecture-dependent.  This is a
> > common and systematic error which causes much grief.  None of the tools
> > check for it, which is another bug^W"opportunity for enhancement".
> 
> %{?_isa} wouldn't really fix this. It'd just change the error from 
> "protected multilib versions" to "unresolvable dependencies". The real issue 
> is that the repository contains packages with broken dependencies, and 
> there's no magic bullet to fix that in yum or in the packaging. There is, 
> however, talk about enforcing the AutoQA dependency checks on the Bodhi end, 
> which should fix that problem in most cases.

AFAICS the real problem here is that an update got unpushed. It seems
like Richard got the 64-bit version of libvirt -3 installed, then the -3
update got unpushed, then something wanted to install the 32-bit version
of libvirt. Obviously, since the update had been unpushed, it was
impossible to find the matching 32-bit version.

As long as updates can be unpushed, that one can pop up.

The other classic case where we get a lot of this (and similar errors)
is when we push the fedora-release update which disables
updates-testing; people have the 64-bit version of something installed
from updates-testing, then they need to have the 32-bit version
installed, but now updates-testing is disabled...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel