On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:39:14 -0700
Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 20:03 +1000, Amit Saha wrote:
> So, this library is missing. However, this should have been
> installed as its a dependency, right?
>
> It can be seen that there are two providers listed for libotf.so.0.
> Since 'openmpi' was already installed, so it didn't bother
> installing 'libotf'. I could simulate the scenario on a Fedora 15
> installation:
The problem is that openmpi includes a libotf.so.0, but it's not in a
path that the system will usually look in for shared libraries, it's
in (libdir)/openmpi/lib/ . openmpi probably shouldn't have a private
copy of libotf in the first place (assuming that's what it is, and
not just a naming coincidence), but if it's going to have one, it
should have a line in the spec to prevent RPM auto-provides from
giving the openmpi package a Provides for libotf.so.0.
It's certainly not the same libotf, since OpenMPI does not have
*anything* to do with truetype fonts.
Even though the library is installed in a non-system directory,
applications that link against libotf will get an automatically
generated Requires: against it anyways.
Maybe OpenMPI upstream should be contacted and asked to rename their
libotf.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org