On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 07:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Quite simply, we want both runtime library and development package > availability of the secondary arch installed by default. We missed a step here. Why on earth would we want this? Users _don't_ seem to want this. As far as I can tell, the only time this is useful is to work around the fact that RPM dependencies aren't arch-specific. That is: at the moment, if I want to build foo.i386 and it says 'BuildRequires: bar-devel', that requirement will be 'satisfied' by the existence of bar-devel.x86_64. And my 'foo' package won't actually build. That's also on the multilib tracker bug, btw -- bug #235755. With RPM fixed so that Requires and BuildRequires can actually pull in the package which is _needed_, I don't see any benefit of having all the secondary-arch stuff installed by default. When you install Skype.i386.rpm on an x86_64 box, the dependencies will work and you'll get the libraries you want. When you want to build evolution.i386 on an x86_64 box, you'll probably have to install a bunch of xxx-devel.i386 packages -- but that's fine. Unless we're going to have a policy of "install _every_ -devel package in every available flavour", you're often going to have to install a few packages to satisfy dependencies. There's no problem with that. With RPM bugs out of the way, there just isn't a viable reason for wanting all the secondary-arch stuff installed by default. I could see an argument for the "install everything" case -- you have infinite disk space and you don't ever want to have to manually install something for dependencies, and you want to use software which isn't RPM-packaged. But "install everything which for the secondary arch which happens to be installed for the primary" is just weird. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
