not possible to install firefox32 and flash32 on x86_64

[isadora]

Hi all,

it seems not to be possible to install 32bit firefox and 64bit firefox and flashplayer32 + java32 on the same time, see my command used with an example of flash-player

Code: Select all

urpmi  flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586 -v --debug
getting lock on urpmi
parsing: /etc/urpmi/mediacfg.d/Official-3-x86_64
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Core Release (distrib1)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Core Updates (distrib3)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Core Backports (distrib7)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Nonfree Release (distrib11)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Nonfree Updates (distrib13)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Core 32bit Release (distrib31)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Core 32bit Updates (distrib32)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Nonfree 32bit Release (distrib36)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
Synthese-Datei [/var/lib/urpmi/Nonfree 32bit Updates (distrib37)/synthesis.hdlist.cz] wird gelesen
getting exclusive lock on rpm
search_packages: found flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586 matching flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586
found package(s): flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586
opening rpmdb (root=, write=)
no packages match flash-player-plugin (it is either in skip.list or already rejected)
no packages match flash-player-plugin (it is either in skip.list or already rejected)
scheduled sets of transactions:
unlocking urpmi database
unlocking rpm database
EXITING (pid=566)

regards
Mike

[doktor5000]

Seems like a bug, you should report that via

Code: Select all

urpmi flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586 --bug somename

What's really weird is this:

[doktor5000@localhost ~]$ sudo LC_ALL=C urpmi flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586 --bug test1
[doktor5000@localhost ~]$ sudo LC_ALL=C urpmi --env test1 flash-player-plugin-11.2.202.310-1.mga3.nonfree.i586
using specific environment on test1
To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be installed:
Package Version Release Arch
(command line)
0B of additional disk space will be used.
Proceed with the installation of one package?

Also check the urpmi man page:

--bug directory
Create a bug report in directory. You have to send a compressed archive of the directory to the urpmi maintainer for the bug being
(probably) reproduced. See "BUG REPORTS" below.

[...]
BUG REPORTS
If you find a bug in urpmi please report it using the command :

urpmi --bug bug_name_as_directory <other arguments>

This will automatically create a directory called bug_name_as_directory containing necessary files to reproduce it if possible. <other
arguments> represent the command-line arguments you noticed the bug with (e.g. "--auto-select" or a list of rpm names). Please test the report
using

urpmi --env bug_name_as_directory <other arguments>

to check that the bug is still here. Obviously, only reproducible bugs can be resolved. For sending the report, make a tarball of this directory
and send it directly to the current maintainer with a description of what you think is wrong.

[tuxinator]

Hi,

i think it's a logical issue because i cannot install any other 32bit app i tested in parallel the 64 one which is logically incorrect isn't it? as we have /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib .... and update-alternatives etc.

regards

Mike

[doktor5000]

Well, that certainly is interesting, it should definitely be possible for most applications to be installed in parallel 32 and 64bit. Some won't work as they contain the same files and will conflict, but it should work for most of them. I wonder if this is somehow related to the UsrMove ...

[tuxinator]

should it be possible with firefox java and flash?

regards

Mike

[doktor5000]

With firefox definitely and also for Java I think. Not sure about Flash, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work.

So did you report this as a bug as recommended?