|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | Zypper/libzypp/satsolver should be more careful with arch changes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] openSUSE 11.1 | Reporter: | Markus Koßmann <markus.kossmann> |
| Component: | libzypp | Assignee: | Stefan Schubert <schubi> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | schubi |
| Version: | Factory | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | --- | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Attachments: | archive with testcase, zypper.log the zypper output on the command line | ||
We have made here changes for the next beta. Will check your testcase.....Thank you! Yes, I have checked it and should be fixed with the next beta. Thank you for the testcase. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 441004 *** |
Created attachment 250878 [details] archive with testcase, zypper.log the zypper output on the command line Trying to update beta4 x86_64 to current factory I get : [...] Die folgenden Pakete werden die Architektur ändern: 3ddiag akonadi-runtime aqbanking at-spi babl-0_0 beagle bluez bug-buddy cairomm chmlib [...] python-satsolver rpm rpm-python sane-frontends satsolver-tools sax2 sax2-gui [...] You see the arch changes include rpm :-( which will cause an update failure and an unusable system after that. And that's not the first time I got that problem during the 11.1 development cycle. Trigger for that problem is probably one of the new -32bit.x86_64 packages with a broken dependency to a .i586 package as it happened before. But I think the solver should become more smart and should try to recognize such a broken dependency. Some ideas for that: Are there really valid cases where a -32bit.x86_64 package depends on an .i586 package ? Is it reasonable that i.e rpm or zypper/libzypp changes arch if the user didn't direct the updater to do so ?