On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 12:36 -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: > At 7:52 AM +0100 8/3/05, Paul Howarth wrote: > >On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 17:19 -0500, Jonathan Berry wrote: > ... > > >My understanding of the way Fedora multilib support works is that rpm > >will allow you to simultaneously install .i386 and .x86_64 versions of > >exactly the same package and it won't complain about file conflicts - it > >just ignores the .i386 versions of conflicting files. This is how it was > >possible for .i386 and .x86_64 versions of perl to coexist in FC3. If > >you then try to update one but not the other, it breaks because the > >epoch/version/release numbers aren't the same and the file conflicts are > >no longer ignored. > > > >The OP's file conflicts were: > > file /usr/bin/mozilla from install of > >mozilla-1.7.10-1.5.1 conflicts with file from package mozilla-1.7.8-2 > > file /usr/share/man/man1/mozilla.1.gz from install of > >mozilla-1.7.10-1.5.1 conflicts with file from package mozilla-1.7.8-2 > > > >Different versions/releases, so that's why there was a conflict. > > In such cases, a more explicit error message would be very helpful. > Something like "Multi-lib support conflict (.i386 package <foo-version1> > vs. .x86_64 package <foor-version2>):", followed by the conflicts. I suspect that this error message comes directly from rpm rather than from yum. Although it's quite easy to diagnose this issue once you've seen it a few times, I think it could be made much more obvious simply by adding the arch information where the conflicting packages are of different architectures: file /usr/bin/mozilla from install of mozilla-1.7.10-1.5.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package mozilla-1.7.8-2.i386 Worth a bugzilla RFE perhaps? Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
