Multilib in Extras repo?

[Hans de Goede]

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:09 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I've looked a bit into preparing the Extras push script for multilib
>> support. In particular:
> 
> Thanks a lot for looking into this -- it's something I've been meaning
> to do, but just haven't gotten enough round 'tuits. :-/
> 
>>  - Find all multicompat -devel binary rpms (considering virtual packages
>>    and ExcludeArch) and copy them to their multilib capable arch repository,
>>    e.g. (i386/i586/i686/athlon -> x86_64).
>>
>>  - Examine the unresolved dependencies of the multicompat packages and
>>    copy all missing Extras packages into the target repository, too.
>>
>> For the dep resolving, I've used the Yum back-end's returnPackagesByDep()
>> method. Although the results look reasonable -- i.e. I see the -devel
>> packages pull it their mother packages and all their deps in Extras --
>> I'm not an expert in Yum API programming and have yet to find out what
>> corner-cases one may need to deal with (Obsoletes? arch/multiarch
>> package picking extra-burden?) and what other pitfalls may be lurking.
> 
> This is what we do for Core with the addition of also having a
> whitelist/blacklist (so that relevant non -devel packages, eg, things
> with gtk+ or pam modules can be included).  
> 
>> Has anyone else spent thoughts on this? Too late for FE6?
>>
>> What is the estimated multilib readiness of FE6? Do we expect
>> many file conflicts (due to arch-specific stuff in generated
>> headers) or package installer/updater problems (on multilib
>> installations)?
> 
> I expect a fair bit of conflicts both on the runtime and the -devel
> side... unfortunately, the only way to really be able to say for sure is
> to actually check the packages.  
> 
> My initial thought was to enable something along these lines for Extras
> devel right after FC6 came out to give time for things to shake out.  I
> could be convinced that doing it now for FE6 and getting things into
> shape is the right answer, though
> 

I think that we should enable this script now and then concentrate on 
fixing any non -devel package conflicts for FC-6. The -devel conflicts 
can be delayed until after FC-6 is released.

Just my 2 cents,

Hans