On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 07:39:42PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Yes, but it does involve much more work to do. And if we assume that > every package is in principle candidate for multilib, we would end > with a guidelines to have all packages using bindir to split off > subpackages. The setting _bindir=/usr/bin64 would already fix the > majority of packages w/o having to touhc the specfile. But it will end up, on x86_64 with the binaries for the primary arch not to be in the classical paths. Wouldn't it better to have _bindir=/usr/bin32 for 32 bit apps? > > Except if they have the same md5 sum? > > Yes and no. One can discuss the usefulness of mtime verification (I > personally think it is useful, and I think the packages can be made to > have the same timestamps on both archs, just use install -p and for > generated files use touch -r from the master files), but there is far > more important metadata like owner/group and mode of the files that > should never be ignored and allowed to conflict. I agree that diferent owner/group and mode of the files should trigger a conflict. For timestamps it is a goal for packaging to keep them and have them identical on both arches, but I don't think it should create a conflict at install time. Some are not easy to avoid, like build time generated documentation. -- Pat -- 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
