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

Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)

On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 07:39:42PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Yes, but it does involve much more work to do. And if we assume that
> every package is in principle candidate for multilib, we would end
> with a guidelines to have all packages using bindir to split off
> subpackages. The setting _bindir=/usr/bin64 would already fix the
> majority of packages w/o having to touhc the specfile.

But it will end up, on x86_64 with the binaries for the primary arch not
to be in the classical paths. Wouldn't it better to have
_bindir=/usr/bin32 for 32 bit apps?

> > Except if they have the same md5 sum?
> Yes and no. One can discuss the usefulness of mtime verification (I
> personally think it is useful, and I think the packages can be made to
> have the same timestamps on both archs, just use install -p and for
> generated files use touch -r from the master files), but there is far
> more important metadata like owner/group and mode of the files that
> should never be ignored and allowed to conflict.

I agree that diferent owner/group and mode of the files should trigger
a conflict. For timestamps it is a goal for packaging to keep them and
have them identical on both arches, but I don't think it should create a
conflict at install time. Some are not easy to avoid, like build time
generated documentation.


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