Howto handle multilib conflict?

[Matthew Woehlke]

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Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.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