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

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.

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

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

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 ?

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 ?

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 :D

Akemi Yagi wrote:

...

I have already been working on this, for completely different reasons... :D 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