Re: Time to make Extras multi-lib?

[Jeremy Katz <katzj redhat com>]

On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 12:55 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:59:19 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 21:41 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 10:27 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I think the ideal way to handle this is to
> > > > build only 64-bit on 64-bit, 32-bit on 32-bit, but make the 32-bit
> > > > packages available in the 64-bit tree as well. At the moment, this isn't
> > > > possible,
> > > 
> > > It ain't pretty, but it's possible from the repo management POV, we
> > > already do copy i386 Wine packages + some dependencies over to the
> > > x86_64 repo as part of the signing/pushing process.  See "copydict" at
> > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/extras-buildsys/utils/extras-sign-move.py?root=fedora&rev=.&view=markup
> > 
> > I suppose that would do as a workaround until something more like the ne
> > algorithm used to determine what should be multilib in core gets
> > implemented for extras as well...
> 
> Is that algorithm documented anywhere?

The basics of it were discussed in the thread on fedora-maintainers from
last month titled "Improving the way we select multilib packages for
trees".

Jeremy