On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:33:53 -0500 Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stepan Kasal wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:13:55PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > >> Stepan Kasal wrote: > >> > >>> First, "perl" and "perl-libs" require each other; this is a usual > >>> solution of the multilib problem > >>> > >> <tangent> > >> I've never understand why one would ever split packages, but them > >> depend on each other. What's the point? What advantage does that > >> have over simply having the contents of both (sub)packages in a > >> single package? </tangent> > >> > > > > with foo and foo-libs, foo-libs can be declared multilib. > > So it is possible that on x86_64 both foo-libs.i386 and > > foo-libs.x86_64 are installed. > > > > If both formed one package "foo" and the usage of the libraries in > > both 32bit and 64bit variant were required, then the package foo > > would have to be declared as multilib. > > > Um, but if <foo>-libs Requires: foo , wouldn't that pull foo into the > multilib mix too, no? Am I missing something? foo-libs.i386 and foo-libs.x86_64 can both depend on foo.x86_64, can't they? Paul. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
