Re: ppc64 builds

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

 



On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 14:57 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 36% of FC6/ppc Core are shipped as 64 bit packages, which means that
> there is quite often the demand/desire to do so. It is very unlikely
> that the demand in Extras is 0.
> 
> The fact that Extras didn't build/ship 64 bits for ppc was probably
> more a technical one, but since the worlds unite, anything that was
> possible with a former Core package will be possible with a former
> Extras package, too.
> 
> 36% also indicates that not all ppc packages make sense to build as 64
> bits, but rather about a third. This looks like the packagers need to
> decide on a package by package basis and communicate this to the
> buildsystem, either by the package database or some metafile in the
> sources. But since this mechanism has to have been available to Core,
> we just need to let packagers know how to trigger this, if they want
> it.


Currently it's just a rather crappy heuristic -- "does it have a -devel
subpackage?". That worked well enough as a first attempt, but it's not
really good enough.

Ideally, I think we want a new RPM tag for it, and it can be specified
in the specfile. The package author can then specify whether the package
should be shipped for the secondary arch (i386 on x86_64, or ppc64 on
ppc64), and even whether the secondary version should be _favoured_
(64-bit gdb on ppc64).

There are those who make coherent arguments that we should prevent RPM
from allowing multilib installations of packages with 'conflicting'
executable files in /usr/bin. Instead of just 'foo' and 'foo-devel', we
should have 'foo', 'foo-libs', and 'foo-devel' packages. The stuff
in /usr/bin should be in 'foo' and you should have _one_ version
installed, not two.

Firefox is a prime example of where we got this wrong, shipping it in
ppc64 form because it had a -devel subpackage, and shipping both
executables _and_ libraries in the 'firefox' package instead of
splitting into 'firefox' and 'firefox-libs' packages. We're fixing that
when we switch to xulrunner.

After a clean install on ppc64, I really shouldn't have _any_ 64-bit
binaries in /usr/bin other than gdb and maybe one or two similar tools
which actually need to be 64-bit, like strace.

This is obviously something to be addressed after the F7 release.

-- 
dwmw2

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers

--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux