[Bug 250271] New: mozilla-nss-32bit and mozilla-nss-32bit dency
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 Summary: mozilla-nss-32bit and mozilla-nss-32bit dency Product: openSUSE 10.3 Version: Alpha 1plus Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Firefox AssignedTo: bnc-team-mozilla@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: pth@novell.com QAContact: qa@suse.de Firefox has %if %has_system_nspr Requires: mozilla-nspr >= %( echo `rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}' mozilla-nspr`) %endif %if %has_system_nss Requires: mozilla-nss >= %( echo `rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}' mozilla-nss`) %endif In its .spec file. As rpm automatically adds $PACKAGE = $VERSION -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 pth@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|mozilla-nss-32bit and |mozilla-nss-32bit and mozilla-nspr-32bit don't |mozilla-nss-32bit dency |satify Firefox requirements ------- Comment #1 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-01 10:20 MST ------- Sorry, I accidentally hit return too early. the two mentioned -32bit packages provide mozilla-nss-32bit and mozilla-nspr-32bit respectively, which won't satisfy Firefox when you try to install the i386 package on an x86_64 system. The simplest solution would be to add explicit Provides: mozilla-nss = %{version} and Provides: mozilla-nspr = %{version} to the respective packages, along with a comment as to why explicit provides are used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 pth@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Info Provider| |mls@novell.com ------- Comment #2 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-01 10:23 MST ------- Michael, would such explicit provides work or should pseudo tags be introduced and used? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 mls@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Info Provider|mls@novell.com | ------- Comment #3 from mls@novell.com 2007-03-01 12:22 MST ------- My understanding is that the user installed a 32bit firefox on a 64bit system. The require line in firefox seems to be a version check, but it won't return an error if mozilla-nss (64bit) has a good enough version, but the needed mozilla-nss-32bit has a too low version. Same is true for pseudo tags... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 mls@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ro@novell.com ------- Comment #4 from mls@novell.com 2007-03-02 08:40 MST ------- I think the right solution would be if we add "Provides: mozilla-nss-32 = %{version}-%{release}" to all 32bit mozilla nss packages, and "Provices: mozilla-nss-64 = %{version}-%{release}" to the 64bit packages, and also add the right Requires to the mozilla package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #5 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-02 09:49 MST ------- How do you inquire that you're building a 32bit package from inside the spec file to handle Provides/Requires? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 wolfgang@rosenauer.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wolfgang@rosenauer.org ------- Comment #6 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 08:55 MST ------- Shouldn't mozilla-nss require mozilla-nss-32bit with the same version release anyway? I think it doesn't right now but it looks like the right solution. (The same for any other package providing baselibs). That could be handled by the baselibs build mechanisms maybe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #7 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-09 09:52 MST ------- @Wolfgang: No, that's not a good idea. A 64bit package should never require the 32bit variant. I've discussed the topic with Rudi and we came to the conclusion to drop the explicit version requirement from Firefox and simply rely on the dependencies created by rpm. If this doesn't work, it's the Mozilla folks to blame for not keeping to the rules of library maintenance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #8 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 10:03 MST ------- You are right. It shouldn't require the 32bit package. A requirement like "if a 32bit package is installed, it has to match the version and release" would be the right thing but that's unlikely to be possible. But for NSPR it will break for sure: Hygiea:~ # rpm -q --provides mozilla-nspr libnspr4.so()(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) "Unfortunately" you can't blame the mozilla folks since they will just answer that you have to use the included NSPR and NSS anyway (instead of system installed ones). For NSS there are "virtual" symbols like libnss3.so(NSS_3.11.1) But I'm not up to date what the policy is for that version numbering since not every minor version is handled that way. I guess those are signalling new features. So basically the deps could break for security stuff if not handled seriously. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #9 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-09 10:20 MST ------- Bother, that sucks rocks through straws. So the only real good solution would be to get real major/minor versions into the upstream sources. That being said, the only good solution to this mess would be to have the plugin player from CVS in Firefox. Then you could simply install the native 64bit version and still use 32bit plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #10 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 11:17 MST ------- nspluginwrapper: (In reply to comment #9)
Bother, that sucks rocks through straws. So the only real good solution would be to get real major/minor versions into the upstream sources.
http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2006-02-22/debian-versioning-of-mozilla-li...
nspluginwrapper? http://software.opensuse.org/download/mozilla/SUSE_Factory/x86_64/nspluginwr... http://software.opensuse.org/download/mozilla/SUSE_Factory/i586/nspluginwrap... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 pth@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Comment #11 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-09 11:38 MST ------- Sigh, I see the MozCorp folks do have their point, but that doesn't sove all problems. But the nspluginwrapper is indeed a solution. So case closed :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #12 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 11:43 MST ------- OK, just checked. mozilla-nss should be fine w/o the extra requirement since the symbol versioning keeps track of features (although not bug- and security-fixes). I'll look at adding symbol versioning to NSPR as well and we could get rid of the extra requirements then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 pth@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|mozilla-nss-32bit and |mozilla-nss-32bit and mozilla-nspr-32bit don't |mozilla-nss-32bit dency |satify Firefox requirements ------- Comment #1 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-01 10:20 MST ------- Sorry, I accidentally hit return too early. the two mentioned -32bit packages provide mozilla-nss-32bit and mozilla-nspr-32bit respectively, which won't satisfy Firefox when you try to install the i386 package on an x86_64 system. The simplest solution would be to add explicit Provides: mozilla-nss = %{version} and Provides: mozilla-nspr = %{version} to the respective packages, along with a comment as to why explicit provides are used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 pth@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Info Provider| |mls@novell.com ------- Comment #2 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-01 10:23 MST ------- Michael, would such explicit provides work or should pseudo tags be introduced and used? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 mls@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Info Provider|mls@novell.com | ------- Comment #3 from mls@novell.com 2007-03-01 12:22 MST ------- My understanding is that the user installed a 32bit firefox on a 64bit system. The require line in firefox seems to be a version check, but it won't return an error if mozilla-nss (64bit) has a good enough version, but the needed mozilla-nss-32bit has a too low version. Same is true for pseudo tags... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 mls@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ro@novell.com ------- Comment #4 from mls@novell.com 2007-03-02 08:40 MST ------- I think the right solution would be if we add "Provides: mozilla-nss-32 = %{version}-%{release}" to all 32bit mozilla nss packages, and "Provices: mozilla-nss-64 = %{version}-%{release}" to the 64bit packages, and also add the right Requires to the mozilla package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #5 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-02 09:49 MST ------- How do you inquire that you're building a 32bit package from inside the spec file to handle Provides/Requires? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 wolfgang@rosenauer.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wolfgang@rosenauer.org ------- Comment #6 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 08:55 MST ------- Shouldn't mozilla-nss require mozilla-nss-32bit with the same version release anyway? I think it doesn't right now but it looks like the right solution. (The same for any other package providing baselibs). That could be handled by the baselibs build mechanisms maybe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #7 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-09 09:52 MST ------- @Wolfgang: No, that's not a good idea. A 64bit package should never require the 32bit variant. I've discussed the topic with Rudi and we came to the conclusion to drop the explicit version requirement from Firefox and simply rely on the dependencies created by rpm. If this doesn't work, it's the Mozilla folks to blame for not keeping to the rules of library maintenance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #8 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 10:03 MST ------- You are right. It shouldn't require the 32bit package. A requirement like "if a 32bit package is installed, it has to match the version and release" would be the right thing but that's unlikely to be possible. But for NSPR it will break for sure: Hygiea:~ # rpm -q --provides mozilla-nspr libnspr4.so()(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) "Unfortunately" you can't blame the mozilla folks since they will just answer that you have to use the included NSPR and NSS anyway (instead of system installed ones). For NSS there are "virtual" symbols like libnss3.so(NSS_3.11.1) But I'm not up to date what the policy is for that version numbering since not every minor version is handled that way. I guess those are signalling new features. So basically the deps could break for security stuff if not handled seriously. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #9 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-09 10:20 MST ------- Bother, that sucks rocks through straws. So the only real good solution would be to get real major/minor versions into the upstream sources. That being said, the only good solution to this mess would be to have the plugin player from CVS in Firefox. Then you could simply install the native 64bit version and still use 32bit plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #10 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 11:17 MST ------- nspluginwrapper: (In reply to comment #9)
Bother, that sucks rocks through straws. So the only real good solution would be to get real major/minor versions into the upstream sources.
http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2006-02-22/debian-versioning-of-mozilla-li...
nspluginwrapper? http://software.opensuse.org/download/mozilla/SUSE_Factory/x86_64/nspluginwr... http://software.opensuse.org/download/mozilla/SUSE_Factory/i586/nspluginwrap... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 pth@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Comment #11 from pth@novell.com 2007-03-09 11:38 MST ------- Sigh, I see the MozCorp folks do have their point, but that doesn't sove all problems. But the nspluginwrapper is indeed a solution. So case closed :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250271 ------- Comment #12 from wolfgang@rosenauer.org 2007-03-09 11:43 MST ------- OK, just checked. mozilla-nss should be fine w/o the extra requirement since the symbol versioning keeps track of features (although not bug- and security-fixes). I'll look at adding symbol versioning to NSPR as well and we could get rid of the extra requirements then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com