[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Howto handle multilib conflict?



Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 18:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686
-devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just the lib packages',
Because not all files in -devel packages cover multiple target
platforms. Example: You could not build for i686 with headers that
are specific to x86_64, and you would also need the .so symlinks for
libraries in the appropriate libdir.

Well, that's only valid if we actually do anything to ensure multilib
compilation actually *works*, right now all we enforce is that the
packages don't conflict (which isn't the same thing at all).

Well... at $DAYJOB we *depend* on being able to compile 32-bit on 64-bit for at least a couple products. And not just on Red Hat (and in my case, Fedora), but also on Solaris, HP-UX, Darwin and AIX, all of which support this just fine. (Yes, "all" includes Fedora/RH, at least for the admittedly limited set of libs we use.)

That said, I'm not asking for it to be actually tested in Fedora, just that if it breaks and I complain, the reply won't be "we don't care because that is not supported and therefore it will not be fixed". IOW I am fine with the current status quo, but I don't want to see multilib dropped (not even sure it can be due to wine) or the policy otherwise become explicitly hostile toward multilib compilation.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
"The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it's simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It's quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two." -- A government official


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]