On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 05:46:46AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 11:42:20AM +0100, Florian La Roche wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 12:32:26AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 19:55 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > > > > Let me ask a silly question here : Why do we want to encourage people to > > > > build 32bit stuff on 64bit installs? > > > > > > On PPC we use mostly 32-bit packages, because 64-bit is fairly pointless > > > for most things. The choice of ppc32 vs. ppc64 isn't the same as the > > > choice of ia32 vs. amd64, because in the ppc case the 32-bit option is > > > still actually a sane architecture with a sane number of registers -- > > > whereas on amd64 you gain more by using the extra registers than you > > > lose to the natural inefficiency of 64-bit code. > > > > > > Even on ppc we kind of move slowly over to use more and more 64bit apps, > > as multilib on power prefers 64bit applications over the 32bit ones. > > But that's just rpm bug, it shouldn't always prefer 64bit rpms over 32bit > ones, instead decide based on how it was configured. > For x86_64, it should be obviously defined to prefer 64bit, I think > on s390x similarly (there 64-bit code can do direct calls rather than > go through the literal pool all the time etc.). On ppc and sparc > it should on the other side prefer 32bit rpms over 64bit. This would depend on at least 32bit /sbin/ldconfig to also be able to work with 64bit ELF files. If that is fixed somehow within glibc*, then this change to rpm could be tried out. regards, Florian La Roche
