-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
gmp-4.3.1-10.el6 provides these libraries:
libgmp.so.3 -> libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmpxx.so.4 -> libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libmp.so.3 -> libmp.so.3.1.14 libmp.so.3.1.14
'libmp.so' from 'gmp' conflicts with same library provided by 'mp' package that I wish to include on Epel6 repositories.
Is it reasonable for you splitting off libmp.so from 'gmp' in a sub-package ?
- -- - --- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
On 06/02/2016 11:57 AM, Antonio Trande wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
gmp-4.3.1-10.el6 provides these libraries:
libgmp.so.3 -> libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmpxx.so.4 -> libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libmp.so.3 -> libmp.so.3.1.14 libmp.so.3.1.14
'libmp.so' from 'gmp' conflicts with same library provided by 'mp' package that I wish to include on Epel6 repositories.
Is it reasonable for you splitting off libmp.so from 'gmp' in a sub-package ?
gmp is a package whose source is provided by RedHat. CentOS aims at 100% binary compatibility with RHEL therefore no change will occur unless RedHat does it.
Bottom line, you will need to take this to RedHat.
wolfy
PS: with my EPEL maintainer head on: you'd better change either the location or the names of the files that you intend to ship
On 06/02/2016 03:57 AM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all,
gmp-4.3.1-10.el6 provides these libraries:
libgmp.so.3 -> libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmpxx.so.4 -> libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libmp.so.3 -> libmp.so.3.1.14 libmp.so.3.1.14
'libmp.so' from 'gmp' conflicts with same library provided by 'mp' package that I wish to include on Epel6 repositories.
Is it reasonable for you splitting off libmp.so from 'gmp' in a sub-package ?
I'd add to what wolfy stated by pointing out that we're not the only 'EL' out there. If we made this change, it would still be incompatible with EPEL, because EPEL builds against RHEL, not CentOS. This would introduce incompatibilities between Scientific Linux, RHEL, CentOS and any of the other variant builds out there.
Wolfy is correct. Your best course of action is to submit this as a bug via redhat's bugzilla.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 06/02/2016 09:11 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 06/02/2016 03:57 AM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all,
gmp-4.3.1-10.el6 provides these libraries:
libgmp.so.3 -> libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmp.so.3.5.0 libgmpxx.so.4 -> libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libgmpxx.so.4.1.0 libmp.so.3 -> libmp.so.3.1.14 libmp.so.3.1.14
'libmp.so' from 'gmp' conflicts with same library provided by 'mp' package that I wish to include on Epel6 repositories.
Is it reasonable for you splitting off libmp.so from 'gmp' in a sub-package ?
I'd add to what wolfy stated by pointing out that we're not the only 'EL' out there. If we made this change, it would still be incompatible with EPEL, because EPEL builds against RHEL, not CentOS. This would introduce incompatibilities between Scientific Linux, RHEL, CentOS and any of the other variant builds out there.
Wolfy is correct. Your best course of action is to submit this as a bug via redhat's bugzilla.
Thanks for your replies. I'm going to package 'mp' libraries in a private directory (/usr/lib/mp) for EPEL6.
- -- - --- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-
Antonio Trande -
Jim Perrin -
Manuel Wolfshant