On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:57 +0200, Robert Scheck wrote: > Hello everbody, > > can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages > at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh? > > - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/gmp/gmp-mparam.h?view=co > - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/e2fsprogs/ext2_types-wrapper.h?view=co > - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/apr/apr-wrapper.h?view=co > - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/openssl/opensslconf-new.h?view=co > > Where's the reason to have a whatever-archname.h if there's no multilib > available on that architecture? From my point of view, multilib wrappers > only make sense on the architectures %{ix86}/x86_64, ppc/ppc64, s390/s390x, > %{sparc}/%{sparcx} and %{mips}/%{mipsel}/%{mipsx}. Tell me, if I'm wrong, > but %{arm}, alpha, ia64 and sh are single-lib, ie. they've only 32 or 64 > bit and no multi-arch. > > I've already raised up the question to the package maintainers, and Joe > has suggested me to ask on fedora-devel for the correct list or reasons > for the current behaviour. In case of openssl the only arch which is handled as multiarch and so the wrapper is added is ia64. It is done like that for historical reasons and it doesn't break anything. Newly added non-multiarch architectures are not added to the wrapper. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
