On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 23:39 +0200, Christian Krause wrote: > On 05/31/2011 11:43 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 09:01:00PM +0200, Christian Krause wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 05/31/2011 06:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > >> However, even if it would be easy for packages like "monodevelop", which > >> contain only C# assemblies and no ELF libraries there may be problems > >> with packages like f-spot, which contains mostly C# assemblies but also > >> include one "glue code" ELF library. Should the package then be split? > >> That sounds a little bit like overkill just for the purpose of having > >> 100% pure correctness of the packages without solving any real problems. > >> ;-) > >> > > Well, it seems like the problems with conflicts between x86 and x86_64 would > > be solved by making noarch packages. The splitting of packages is just > > Since the mono runtime environment contains arch-dependent executables > (e.g. /usr/bin/mono), it will never be possible to install both the x86 > and the x86_64 stack on x86_64. So multi-arch seems to be impossible > with mono. This is true for python too, but there is still some multilibness. But even assuming that's true... > On the other hand, since the C# assemblies are exchangeable between x86 > and x86_64, it should be possible to have a shared /usr/lib directory > even without splitting the packages. [...] > Hm, just because a package contains arch-dependent and arch-independent > libraries, this does not automatically call for separating the > arch-independent parts into noarch packages. Just look at all python or > perl packages which come with e.g. arch-independent python/perl > parts/libraries and additionally contain ELF binary parts or not > splitted. These packages are just then arch-dependent. A significant number of python packages are split (Eg. yum has it's "native" parts in a separate package). One of the reasons for this is that if you have say f-spot-cmd and f-spot, where just the former is native ... you get to save storing all of the *.dll etc. files N times. This can add up quickly given a significant number of packages and architectures. > > OTOH, with other languages (for instance python) only some things end up > > multilibbed. For instance, python-libs (from the python package) is > > multilib and pygtk2-devel is multilib (but not pygtk2 itself). > > python-pycurl is an example of a package that is not multilibbed. So... eh, > > your argument makes enough sense to me. > > Just to avoid misunderstandings: What do you specifically mean with > multilibbed? The ability to install both packages (i686 and x86_64) on > x86_64 without getting any conflicts? Yes. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
