On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 20:11 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > 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. > I have to agree, I didn't know about the stupid bin behaviour and recently started flushing 64-bit packages from my ppc64 machine, and ended up removing a fair few files from /usr/bin that were still being provided by the 32-bit packages. it just screamed kludge to me.. Dave. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
