On 22 January 2016 at 13:38, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Ian Malone <ibmalone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 22 January 2016 at 09:05, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 21/01/16 22:24, Ian Malone wrote: >>>> >>>> Since RHEL/CentOS 7 already does not exist in a native 32bit version I >>>> do wonder what would actually be running in a hypothetical >>>> mock/container/VM to build and run 32 bit systems down the road if >>>> multilib went away. >>> >>> >>> CentOS 7 does now have a 32-bit version: >>> >>> http://seven.centos.org/2015/10/centos-linux-7-32-bit-x86-i386-architecture-released/ >>> >> >> While interesting to know, that is a CentOS SIG effort. If you are >> using RHEL you presumably aren't supported for it, and I'm giving it >> as an example of the way things are going. In any case I find this > > If you're using RHEL, then you'd use RHEL to build for RHEL surely. > Which means you build on RHEL however it enables you to build 32-bit > applications. Sure, you could use Fedora to build for RHEL, but I > find that baffling in either the mock or the multilib case. There's > just no sanity in expecting something built on Fedora multilib to work > on RHEL except in the simplest of cases. > Indeed. I don't build for RHEL using Fedora. However it would be unexpected (unprecented?) for Fedora to diverge from RH on handling multilib, and I expect changes here will show up there eventually, hence taking an interest in this issue. Fedora I use at home and don't often have call to build 32bit with (though this would probably be different if I made use of Wine at all). -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
