Le Jeu 20 juillet 2006 15:25, Erwin Rol a écrit : > On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:20 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Believe me you're far better off with overlapping packages than a >> multiplication of "common" packages. > > What is the technical reason that overlapping packages are better than > common packages ? They still would be created from the same source rpm, > just like the gcc source rpm "creates" a number of rpms. common subpackages wouldn't help your conflict a little bit as sanity would demand i386 and x86_64 require a common subpackage with the same nevr. So instead of yum barfing because i386 and x86_64 are not in sync you'd get yum barfing because i386 demands one common package and x86_64 another. rpm does not support producing subpackages with differing arches from the same srpm, you have to workaround this by launching several builds from the same srpm (plus spec ugly logic...) this is only done for very special packages in the buildsys you'd get a lot of packages with one or two files in them and needlessly bloat the package number (which would bloat repodata, make more spec creation and translation manual work, bloat the dependency graph your rpm has to manage...) and probably a vouple other reasons I forget. All this for no win, since your problem is not the way we share files accross multiarch, but that at a given time i386 and x86_64 package sets are not consistent with each other. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
