* Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-11-06 10:44]: > * Steve <zephod@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-11-06 10:30]: > > > > ---- Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Steve <zephod@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-11-06 09:03]: > > > > I did some experiments and I was able to reproduce the same problem if > > > > I only installed: > > > > java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.18.b09.fc9.i386 > > > > java-1.6.0-openjdk-plugin-1.6.0.0-0.18.b09.fc9.x86_64 > > > > > > > > ie don't install the x86_64 package of openjdk. If I only install the > > > > x86_64 package and not the i386 package, the java plugin still works. > > > > > > The OpenJDK packages aren't multi-lib compatible. > > > > So that means that the x86_64 and i386 packages shouldn't be installed > > at the same time? ;-D > > Technically yes, I guess. Tom? > > > If these packages are not meant to be installed at the same time, then > > perhaps it would be a good idea to have the package dependecies set up > > to prevent this by default. > > Yes. Lillian/Deepak: any thoughts on this? > Hmm, outside of removing it from yum, I am not sure if it is possible to create an RPM conflict based on arch. We could create a dummy provides based on arch, and have those conflict... I've never tried it though so I am not sure how well it would work. > > Is there a situation when you would want them both installed? > > You *may* want both installed if you have 32-bit and 64-bit JNI code in > different apps but in general you won't need both. > > Andrew -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
