apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

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.

Because of this apxs dies with:

cannot open /httpd/build/config_vars.mk: No such file or directory at
/usr/sbin/apxs line 201.

See <http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2934>

apr-devel.x86_64 does not provide apr-devel in a 64 bit version *and*
httpd-devel does not require apr-devel in a 64bit version.

This way only the i386 version gets installed, while pkg-config on a
64bit machine will look in /usr/lib64/pkgconfig for the apr-1.pc
package.

Same goes for the 64bit apr-util-devel package.

Can someone look into the RHEL 5.2 packages to see if that is an
upstream problem?

Strange thing: The Requires and Provides are the same in 5.1 - but there
the x86_64 versions of apr-devel and apr-util-devel get installed when
you install httpd-devel.x86_64 - and not the i386 versions.

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

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Ralph Angenendt
<ra+centos@br-online.de> 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.
>
> Because of this apxs dies with:
>
> cannot open /httpd/build/config_vars.mk: No such file or directory at
> /usr/sbin/apxs line 201.
>
> See <http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2934>
>
> apr-devel.x86_64 does not provide apr-devel in a 64 bit version *and*
> httpd-devel does not require apr-devel in a 64bit version.
>
> This way only the i386 version gets installed, while pkg-config on a
> 64bit machine will look in /usr/lib64/pkgconfig for the apr-1.pc
> package.
>
> Same goes for the 64bit apr-util-devel package.
>
> Can someone look into the RHEL 5.2 packages to see if that is an
> upstream problem?
>
> Strange thing: The Requires and Provides are the same in 5.1 - but there
> the x86_64 versions of apr-devel and apr-util-devel get installed when
> you install httpd-devel.x86_64 - and not the i386 versions.

I've tested this on both a RHEL5.2 and a C5.2 install. I did "yum
install httpd-devel.x86_64" on both installs and in both cases it only
installed x86_64 versions of the deps . Here is part of the yum output
on RHEL :

================================================== ===========================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================== ===========================
Installing:
httpd-devel x86_64 2.2.3-11.el5_1.3 rhel-server-media 147 k
Installing for dependencies:
apr-devel x86_64 1.2.7-11 rhel-server-media 243 k
apr-util-devel x86_64 1.2.7-7.el5 rhel-server-media 54 k
cyrus-sasl-devel x86_64 2.1.22-4 rhel-server-media 1.4 M
db4-devel x86_64 4.3.29-9.fc6 rhel-server-media 2.1 M
expat-devel x86_64 1.95.8-8.2.1 rhel-server-media 126 k
gcc x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 rhel-server-media 5.3 M
glibc-devel x86_64 2.5-24 rhel-server-media 2.4 M
glibc-headers x86_64 2.5-24 rhel-server-media 601 k
kernel-headers x86_64 2.6.18-92.el5 rhel-server-media 879 k
libgomp x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 rhel-server-media 83 k
openldap-devel x86_64 2.3.27-8.el5_1.3 rhel-server-media 1.6 M

and on C :

================================================== ===========================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================== ===========================
Installing:
httpd-devel x86_64 2.2.3-11.el5_1.centos.3 base
147 k
Installing for dependencies:
apr-devel x86_64 1.2.7-11 base 242 k
apr-util-devel x86_64 1.2.7-7.el5 base 54 k
cyrus-sasl-devel x86_64 2.1.22-4 base 1.4 M
db4-devel x86_64 4.3.29-9.fc6 base 2.1 M
expat-devel x86_64 1.95.8-8.2.1 base 127 k
gcc x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 base 5.3 M
glibc-devel x86_64 2.5-24 base 2.4 M
glibc-headers x86_64 2.5-24 base 602 k
kernel-headers x86_64 2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 updates 880 k
libgomp x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 base 83 k
openldap-devel x86_64 2.3.27-8.el5_1.3 base 1.6 M

Maybe it is a local thing ?

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

Tim Verhoeven wrote:

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Ralph Angenendt
<ra+centos@br-online.de> 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.

Because of this apxs dies with:

cannot open /httpd/build/config_vars.mk: No such file or directory at
/usr/sbin/apxs line 201.

See <http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2934>

apr-devel.x86_64 does not provide apr-devel in a 64 bit version *and*
httpd-devel does not require apr-devel in a 64bit version.

This way only the i386 version gets installed, while pkg-config on a
64bit machine will look in /usr/lib64/pkgconfig for the apr-1.pc
package.

Same goes for the 64bit apr-util-devel package.

Can someone look into the RHEL 5.2 packages to see if that is an
upstream problem?

Strange thing: The Requires and Provides are the same in 5.1 - but there
the x86_64 versions of apr-devel and apr-util-devel get installed when
you install httpd-devel.x86_64 - and not the i386 versions.


I've tested this on both a RHEL5.2 and a C5.2 install. I did "yum
install httpd-devel.x86_64" on both installs and in both cases it only
installed x86_64 versions of the deps . Here is part of the yum output
on RHEL :

================================================== ===========================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================== ===========================
Installing:
httpd-devel x86_64 2.2.3-11.el5_1.3 rhel-server-media 147 k
Installing for dependencies:
apr-devel x86_64 1.2.7-11 rhel-server-media 243 k
apr-util-devel x86_64 1.2.7-7.el5 rhel-server-media 54 k
cyrus-sasl-devel x86_64 2.1.22-4 rhel-server-media 1.4 M
db4-devel x86_64 4.3.29-9.fc6 rhel-server-media 2.1 M
expat-devel x86_64 1.95.8-8.2.1 rhel-server-media 126 k
gcc x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 rhel-server-media 5.3 M
glibc-devel x86_64 2.5-24 rhel-server-media 2.4 M
glibc-headers x86_64 2.5-24 rhel-server-media 601 k
kernel-headers x86_64 2.6.18-92.el5 rhel-server-media 879 k
libgomp x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 rhel-server-media 83 k
openldap-devel x86_64 2.3.27-8.el5_1.3 rhel-server-media 1.6 M

and on C :

================================================== ===========================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================== ===========================
Installing:
httpd-devel x86_64 2.2.3-11.el5_1.centos.3 base
147 k
Installing for dependencies:
apr-devel x86_64 1.2.7-11 base 242 k
apr-util-devel x86_64 1.2.7-7.el5 base 54 k
cyrus-sasl-devel x86_64 2.1.22-4 base 1.4 M
db4-devel x86_64 4.3.29-9.fc6 base 2.1 M
expat-devel x86_64 1.95.8-8.2.1 base 127 k
gcc x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 base 5.3 M
glibc-devel x86_64 2.5-24 base 2.4 M
glibc-headers x86_64 2.5-24 base 602 k
kernel-headers x86_64 2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 updates 880 k
libgomp x86_64 4.1.2-42.el5 base 83 k
openldap-devel x86_64 2.3.27-8.el5_1.3 base 1.6 M

Maybe it is a local thing ?


Tim,

Maybe you have i386 excluded from your repo file (I do as well). I
think this is a yum issue, and it is meeting the requirement with the
wrong package because it can. This issue is caused because the i386
devel packages are in the tree ... are they supposed to be?


But I don't think we can fix it except to ask redhat to do it, if
apr-devel.i386 is in the upstream repo that is.


OK ... I just checked in RHN and apr-devel-1.2.7-11.i386 is in the x86_64.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes

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

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> Maybe you have i386 excluded from your repo file (I do as well). I think
> this is a yum issue, and it is meeting the requirement with the wrong
> package because it can. This issue is caused because the i386 devel
> packages are in the tree ... are they supposed to be?

These are both fresh installs . I've double check the yum configs,
both do not exclude i386 packages.

> But I don't think we can fix it except to ask redhat to do it, if
> apr-devel.i386 is in the upstream repo that is.
>
> OK ... I just checked in RHN and apr-devel-1.2.7-11.i386 is in the x86_64.

Yep, upstream has i386 packages of apr and apr-util in their x86_64 tree.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

Tim Verhoeven wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:

Tim,

Maybe you have i386 excluded from your repo file (I do as well). I think
this is a yum issue, and it is meeting the requirement with the wrong
package because it can. This issue is caused because the i386 devel
packages are in the tree ... are they supposed to be?


These are both fresh installs . I've double check the yum configs,
both do not exclude i386 packages.


But I don't think we can fix it except to ask redhat to do it, if
apr-devel.i386 is in the upstream repo that is.

OK ... I just checked in RHN and apr-devel-1.2.7-11.i386 is in the x86_64.


Yep, upstream has i386 packages of apr and apr-util in their x86_64 tree.


OK ... this is what we have figured out.

You can not do this:

yum install httpd-devel

instead you have to do:

yum install httpd-devel.x86_64

If you do the first (without ,x86_64), then i386 package is installed
along with the x86_64 one and it pulls in all the other i386 packages to
meet the requires ... if you do the second (with .x86_64) it works OK
and does not install the i386 version at all.


This behavior is different than earlier versions of yum, but I do not
see any way to revert the behavior. I would think the goal should be to
not do anything with other arches (i386 on x86_64 install, for example)
unless specifically asked for.


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


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

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

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).

--
James Antill <james@fedoraproject.com>
Fedora
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

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"?

Cheers,

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

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

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.

-sv


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

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

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.

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

apr-devel and httpd-devel packaging problem
 

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.

-sv


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