Package Build Report - Fedora Extras Development

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:39:03 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 15:39 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 05.05.2005, 08:35 -0400 schrieb seth vidal: 
> > > The following packages failed to build on Fedora Extras Development:
> > > [...] 
> > > Coin2
> > > [...] 
> > > See: http://extras64.linux.duke.edu/failed/development/
> > > for logs.
> > 
> > Seth, on x86_64 the buildsystem/mach/yum installs the 32-bit version of
> > libGLU (xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.FC3.13.i386) and not the 64bit-
> > version (xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.FC3.13.x86_64) for the
> > "BuildRequire libGLU.so.1". The build fails due to that. I wanted to
> > look into this already known problem but did not find the time/it got
> > lost. Sorry for that.
> > 
> > So, how do we fix that?
> By Seth fixing his build system.
> 
> >  I'm a bit unsure. I suppose (but did not try)
> > that the build system would install the x86_64 Version if we would
> > 
> > BuildRequires: libGLU >= 1
> > 
> > as suggested by mharris in 
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2005-March/msg00128.html
> > But this only works in devel :-(
> > 
> > Another way to fix maybe would be to do a 
> > 
> > %ifarch x86_64
> > BuildRequires: libGLU.so.1()((64bit)
> > %else
> > BuildRequires: libGLU.so.1
> > %endif
> Sorry, but that's nuts -  rpm must handle this case by itself.

Sure it's nuts, but a temporary (!) work-around I could think of.

Both libGLU.so.1()(64bit) and libGL.so.1()(64bit) virtual provides do exist.

> > (was suggested my Michael Schwendt iirc). Also untested and imho ugly. 
> > 
> > Or do you consider it as a buildsystem/yum bug?
> 
> Well I am not sure, as I don't have access to i68_64 systems.
> 
> What does 
> rpm -qf /usr/lib/libGLU.so
> and
> rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libGLU.so

You get both times xorg-x11-devel, IIRC, but with different arch.

> say, rsp. what does 
> "rpm -q --whatprovides libGLU.so"
> 
> with a both versions of libGLU.so installed report?

No package would ever provide that as a SONAME. Only querying
the actual files with complete paths [as above] works.

> > Why does this problem only show up with this package (or are
> > there others I missed?).
> Many possibilities.

BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel  here simply pulls in the i386 package
and not the x86_64 package. Problem hasn't surfaced earlier, because
no x86_64 packages have been built in mach[+yum] before, at least
not at fedora.us, and initial builds for pre-Extras were made in full
installations.