On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 19:12 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 16:23 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > One of the things we've been looking at is improving support for > > > multilib/multiarch environments. The next big step is handling > > > devel packages so they can be installed in a multilib fashion. > > > > > > However, many devel packages have conflicts in their header > > > and similar files. > > > > > > > Can a similar report be generated for Extras? > > > > we don't ship any multilib pkgs in extras at all. ??? These issues affect Extras in the same way as they affect Core. Very oversimplified, Bill's remark boils down to: "Can xxx-devel-V-R.i386.rpm and xxx-devel-V-R.x86_64.rpm be installed simultaneously and in parallel without conflicts or functional defects?" Also, if thinking a bit further on this case, it's easy to identify more classes of breakages than Bill mentioned. Just to mention a few: * arch-depended package dependencies. * arch-depended runtime features. * rpm scriptlets. > and if it is possible hopefully we can keep it that way! :) Well, if FC and FE were shipping real multilib'ed packages (i.e. packages containing files for several archs of a basearch at once), this thread would not exist, because then, all packages which are not ready/designed for multilibs could not be shipped. Ralf
