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

Re: x864_64 up2date gone wild.

Gene C. writes:

On Tuesday 17 February 2004 19:08, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Gene C. writes:
> Yes but ..
> The practical matter is that you do need repository pointers to both
> x86_64 and i386 respositories in the general case.  Updates for the gcc,
> glibc, XFree86, etc. packages which include both x86_64 and ix86 packages
> in the FC1 x86_64 distribution will require both sets of repositories.
> Hopefully, FC1 x86_64 final will be coming out shortly and that should
> fix a lot of this stuff.

Pointing up2date to a copy of the i386 update channel did resolve that
dependency, but it then complained about an unresolved dependency on
libgl.so, which I believe is a known issue.

Still, this just feels wrong.  The x86_64 channel should include any
necessary i386 stuff.

Don't disagree ... don't agree. What this comes down to is that I do not know what the "right" answer is.

The Opteron/Athlon64 offers a interesting environment where both 64 bit and 32 bit userlan application can run concurrently on the same hardware under the same OS. This is creating an "interesting" situation for creating a x86_64 distribution.

From a packaging perspective this is no different than i686. On FC1 i686
you have stuff - like glibc, that contains both i686 and i386 components. Everything gets stuffed into a single update channel, and everything works well.

The only extra thing on x86_64 is that sometimes you have both i386 and xf86_64 packages installed with the same name, release, and version, but different arches. Although on x86 this never happens -- at least the name is different -- practically it shouldn't matter; and yum, anyway, handles it just fine, provided that all the required packages ARE, actually, available.

If you look in the archives for fedora-test list (or fedora-devel-list, I forget which), there is some discussion on how rpm "does the right thing". It is still not clear to me how to make sure that the "right thing: is done installing packages post system installation/creation.

It's not an issue with the rpm doing the right thing, because it does already. The problem is that the update channel itself is fubared. If you build the right packages for the channel, rpm will get it right.

Attachment: pgp00072.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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