On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:18 +0100, Ian Chapman wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: > > > The current multilib solution in rpm is far from pretty, it works well, > > but definitively has downsides. I think as is its a reasonable > > comprimise, lets not add bandaids and patches to it for issues which > > should be solved elsewhere, I feel the pain of maintainers getting these > > bugs (I got 15 of them), but they are fixable without requiring the > > addition of yet another multilib kludge to rpm. > > Well the question is still really where should these issues ultimately > be solved? Is kludging the rpms any more elegant than patching rpm? I > must admit I have no idea how other distro's deal with these kind of > issues. Without ranting aimlessly, IMO the only real solution is to stop kludging rpm, yum, etc. and split out multilib libraries properly - and if needed, seek and get approval for a bin64/bin32 with alternatives system. Hacking RPM to simply ignore the fact that two packages provide the same file is not the solution. AFAIK, the only things in the way of a real solution are: * Standards. These can be changed/updated. * Packages. These can be fixed. I'll shutup now ;-) Jon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
