On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 13:53 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 07:18:39PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28 April 2007 at 13:22, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:42:03PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > > You're trying to solve a different problem.
> > >
> > > The main issue is that while FC1.92 started by allowing selected libs
> > > form i386 to coexist to assist in installing i386 packages for not yet
> > > available x86_64 counterparts, it has evolved to more and more libs,
> > > even for stuff that none will really be interested to install the i386
> > > part of, and even for developing i386 on x86_64.
> > >
> > > So the problem domain slovly changes and multilib is not adequate to
> > > serve the needs. We either need to admit that and reduce the specs to
> > > what multilib can do on paper and also fix the issues in
> > > implementation, or find a better solution that serves the changed
> > > demand.
> > >
> > > That's what this is all about, and given the bad history of multilib
> > > support in rpm, a solution that does not involve any fiddling with
> > > rpm, yum, anaconda, smart, apt, ... is preferred.
> >
> > rpm needs fixing not to allow conflicting files in {,/usr}/{,s}bin be
> > installed.
>
> Actually rpm did that before multilib was added, so in fact your
> request to "fix" rpm means to remove multilib support.
rpm complaining about conflicting programs in {,/usr}/{,s}bin doesn't
affect multilibs at all.
Ralf
--
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
