FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, seth vidal wrote:


On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:31 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:

seth vidal wrote:

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 17:53 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:

Johnny Hughes wrote:

So, the answer is in an x86_64 install you need to add .x86_64 to your
install commands.


You want to update that bug report mentioned above? Or should I do that?
Should that be closed as "Not a bug"?



I've confirmed this on a box here - it's weird - the codepath should be
identical - I'm doing a bit more spelunking.


Thank you.


okay - it's fixed in 3.2.X in git - probably working in 3.2.16, too -
but not in 3.2.8.


Could that be marked to become fixed as part of RHEL 5.3 ?

--
-- dag wieers, dag@centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 06-30-2008, 09:48 PM
seth vidal
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 23:29 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:31 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >> seth vidal wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 17:53 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >>>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>>>> So, the answer is in an x86_64 install you need to add .x86_64 to your
> >>>>> install commands.
> >>>>
> >>>> You want to update that bug report mentioned above? Or should I do that?
> >>>> Should that be closed as "Not a bug"?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I've confirmed this on a box here - it's weird - the codepath should be
> >>> identical - I'm doing a bit more spelunking.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >
> > okay - it's fixed in 3.2.X in git - probably working in 3.2.16, too -
> > but not in 3.2.8.
>
> Could that be marked to become fixed as part of RHEL 5.3 ?

I think that's roughly in the plan but I'm not a rhel decider of any
kind.

-sv


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 06-30-2008, 10:13 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

On 07/01/2008 12:48 AM, seth vidal wrote:



So, the answer is in an x86_64 install you need to add .x86_64 to your
install commands.


You want to update that bug report mentioned above? Or should I do that?
Should that be closed as "Not a bug"?



I've confirmed this on a box here - it's weird - the codepath should be
identical - I'm doing a bit more spelunking.


Thank you.


okay - it's fixed in 3.2.X in git - probably working in 3.2.16, too -
but not in 3.2.8.


Could that be marked to become fixed as part of RHEL 5.3 ?



I think that's roughly in the plan but I'm not a rhel decider of any
kind.


any chance of having this version of yum in centosplus ?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 06-30-2008, 11:09 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>>>> okay - it's fixed in 3.2.X in git - probably working in 3.2.16, too -
>>>> but not in 3.2.8.
>>>>
>>> Could that be marked to become fixed as part of RHEL 5.3 ?
>>>
>>
>> I think that's roughly in the plan but I'm not a rhel decider of any
>> kind.
>>
> any chance of having this version of yum in centosplus ?
>

I have already been working on this, for completely different reasons...
and James has offered to help out as well. Lookout for some news on
this front in the next few days.

--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-02-2008, 01:27 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

James Antill wrote:

On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 23:57 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:

Morning,

we seem to have a packaging problem with httpd-devel.x86_64 and
apr-devel.x86_64.

If you install httpd-devel on an x86_64 machine, apr-devel is required
by this package.

It then goes on to install apr-devel - but the i386 version.


This is an ongoing problem in yum/rpm/Fedora/etc. where packages want
arch deps. but rpm does not yet offer them (very new rpm fills in
%{_isa} to solve this problem).
Atm. it's not really a packaging problem or a yum problem, although you
can work around it by using a file dep. in the package ... or by doing
excludes in yum (or telling yum to install apr-devel.x86_64 by hand).

Of course, we don't change the upstream requires "on purpose" so by
policy we can't do this


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-04-2008, 09:25 AM
"Akemi Yagi"
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>>>>> okay - it's fixed in 3.2.X in git - probably working in 3.2.16, too -
>>>>> but not in 3.2.8.
>>>>>
>>>> Could that be marked to become fixed as part of RHEL 5.3 ?
>>>
>>> I think that's roughly in the plan but I'm not a rhel decider of any
>>> kind.
>>>
>> any chance of having this version of yum in centosplus ?
>
> I have already been working on this, for completely different reasons...
> and James has offered to help out as well. Lookout for some news on
> this front in the next few days.
> --
> Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq

I am eager to test the patched version of yum. Any news on this front?

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-04-2008, 10:08 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

Akemi Yagi wrote:

I have already been working on this, for completely different reasons...
and James has offered to help out as well. Lookout for some news on
this front in the next few days.

I am eager to test the patched version of yum. Any news on this front?


I'll have some info on my blog in the next few days, we wont see a
public release till 3.1.17 is released though.


- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-04-2008, 10:09 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem

Karanbir Singh wrote:

Akemi Yagi wrote:

I have already been working on this, for completely different reasons...
and James has offered to help out as well. Lookout for some news on
this front in the next few days.

I am eager to test the patched version of yum. Any news on this front?


I'll have some info on my blog in the next few days, we wont see a
public release till 3.1.17 is released though.



eer 3.2.17
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org