FC5T2 and Development issues, observations, and questions

[Nathan Grennan]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> think this could be problematic for debugging unless there is some boot 
>> option that makes the kernel act 100% like it would with a UP kernel.
>>     
>
> Makes it easier - we've only got *one* kernel to debug now 8)
>   
Not the cleanest logic
>> 3. Where are the x86_64 Xen 3.0 kernels? All I see are i686 in 
>>     
>
> NYA
>   
Huh?
>> 6. I wanted to install galeon.i386 from extras, and it needed to install 
>> mozilla.i386. Being that I am running x86_64, mozilla.x86_64 was already 
>> installed. For some reason mozilla.i386 refused to install, because it 
>> said /usr/bin/mozilla and /usr/share/man/man1/mozilla.1.gz conflicted 
>> with mozilla.x86_64. Both are mozilla-1.7.12-3. Is this a bug in the 
>> package? Is this a bug in rpm? I originally used yum and got the error, 
>> but then I tried rpm directly and received the same error message.
>>     
>
> Correct behaviour. Its refusing to allow two clashing sets of files to overwrite
> each other. You need to remove the x86_64 one first.
>   
  No, that isn't the correct behavior. It isn't the behavior of FC4. 
Though I don't happen to have mozilla.i386 and mozilla.x86_64 installed 
on my FC4 desktop, I do have Gconf2.i386 and Gconf2.x86_64 installed on 
my desktop. They didn't conflict with each other, and do contain 
binarys. The rule as far as I know has been that the x86_64 binary is 
the dominate one in the case where both are installed. If the mozilla 
behavior I describe is the new behavior then x86_64 systems just became 
a lot more problematic than they already are.

 Example of why I need both. I need galeon.i386 instead of galeon.x86_64 
for things like flash and java. Then for galeon.i386 I need 
mozilla.i386. But then I need mozilla.x86_64 for beagle.x86_64. I could 
replace beagle.x86_64 with beagle.i386, but beagle isn't the only thing 
that depends on mozilla. yelp, devhelp, and mozilla-devel(and 
mozilla-devel.x86_64 is the only sane version to install on a x86_64 
system outside of a chroot). Plus this is just a minor example there are 
most likely other packages that have a much bigger list of packages that 
depend on them. Then I would have to start replacing huge chunks of the 
system with i386 packages just so I can use one i386 package.