On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:07:43PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:13 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Which is only needed once you start allowing (in your concept) files
> > of one "color" to be overwritable by another.
>
> Allowing that was always a mistake. It needs to die.
>
> > > 'punched install/remove holes'?
> >
> > See a prvious mail, but for the sake of context:
> >
> > yum install foo.i386
> > yum install foo.x86_64
>
> Error. Files from foo.x86_64 conflict with files from foo.i386.
>
> > yum remove foo.x86_64
>
> Error. foo.x86_64 is not installed.
>
> > rpm -V foo
>
> Works fine.
God, I hate it when people trim away the important parts. Aow you
assume again your model of "review everything once again, we'll split
off all bins by F10-F11", but I'm still in this year, and want Fedora
to do something more then rereviewing all its specfiles several times
a year.
> > > I'm listening.... be specific. How does it work?
> >
> > -%_bindir %{_exec_prefix}/bin
> > -%_sbindir %{_exec_prefix}/sbin
> > -%_libexecdir %{_exec_prefix}/libexec
> > +%_bindir %{_exec_prefix}/bin64
> > +%_sbindir %{_exec_prefix}/sbin64
> > +%_libexecdir %{_exec_prefix}/%{_lib}
> >
> > And sure, there will be packages with hardcoded bindirs to /usr/bin,
> > which we'll automatically detect on the first rebuild.
>
> And all binaries are built with matching rpath? And to look in
> %{_exec_prefix}/%{_lib} for dlopen, etc.?
I don't see why not, but I also don't see what it buy us.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgprb4LO6bLSH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
