On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:31 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:26:46AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > We should fix our packaging so that these file conflicts don't exist > > Bug #235757 covers this, as does the subject line of this thread. > > This should certainly also be considered by FESCo and the packaging > commitee: if it enters the guidelines it should be fairly easy to push > packagers to fix their packages -- even before binaries conflict. We can probably also make RPM notice this when the package is created. If a package provides a file in /usr/lib64 and a file in /usr/bin, then it's a fairly safe bet that the 32-bit version of that same package will conflict with it. > I don't think autoconf itself is a show stopper. And anyway these are > bugs outside of fedora (ie upstream). Allowing people to develop i386 > apps on a x86_64 box would help solving thoses issues. I don't think we > should force developpers to use chroots for building normal packages > on fedora, but instead leave them the choice, be it only to leave them > the opportunity to fix their packages to build right in multilib > environment and be able to spot bugs in the tools (like pkgconfig > issues). I agree. They should have the _option_ of installing all the wrong-arch development stuff and debugging the resulting autocrap and pkg-config problems, if they like that kind of pain. I'm just saying that we shouldn't install all that wrong-arch stuff by _default_. -- 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
