On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 22:25 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 16:41 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > >>> It's not to be considered a bug, AFAIK. We don't stipulate that > >>> development packages be installable side-by-side in this way, we only > >>> stipulate that for library packages where there's a need for it. There's > >>> no particular use case where you absolutely need both -devel packages > >>> installed at once. > >>> > >> I believe this is incorrect. devel packages are supposed to be multilib > >> installable. There's two things that are two files that conflict above and > >> there's two different fixes for each. > > > > I'm happy to be wrong :), but is this documented anywhere? That's why I > > thought the opposite was the case, I couldn't find anything to this > > effect in the packaging documentation when I was starting out. > > > > Well, I know it is documented that file conflicts are never allowed, ever, > at all w/o an explicit conflicts: in the spec file. Ah, yeah. That would cover it without any need for a specific multilib policy, for sure. (I checked, and libotf-devel i686 is in the x86-64 repo). Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686 -devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just the lib packages', but it does explain for sure that I was wrong in my initial reply, sorry for that! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
