On 02/07/2012 12:04 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/07/2012 10:36 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:On 02/06/2012 05:30 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:On 02/06/2012 03:58 PM, Julio Merino wrote:What do you mean by "multi-lib heartburn in RPM"? (Sorry, not familiar from the term and a couple of Google searches did't provide much insight.) FWIW, I have a preliminary atf.spec file here that provides subpackages for libraries, tests and binaries and things seem to be fine to my untrained eye. I can share this file if it helps at all.No, what I meant here is that RPM, when dealing with multi-arch support (essentially the ability to simultaneously foo.i686.rpm and foo.x86_64.rpm containing the same set of files, just built for the different architecture targets), won't understand /usr/tests (or /usr/libexec/tests for that matter). However, if you want to be able to support this use-case, you'll need to do something here to enable it, such as requiring that architecture be embedded in the naming scheme, e.g. /usr/tests/xpdf-x86_64/Um, rpm doesn't do multilib conflict resolution based on specific directories but file type, essentially 32bit vs 64bit ELF. So if foo-test.i686 and too-test.x86_64 both place an ELF binary into eg /usr/libexec/tests/foo, the file from the preferred arch (normally the 64bit one) will "win", the other file is not installed at all and no conflict is raised. Whether you actually *want* that behavior is another question: tests and their associated data can just as well be arch-specific or arch-independent. The only safe assumption is to assume arch-specific and put all test executables and associated data into arch-specific paths (whether some variant of lib vs lib64 style differentation or by actually embedding the arch string).%{_libdir}/<package>/<somewhere> avoids all these issues.
Yes, except for noarch packages where %{_libdir} is not meaningful.
- Panu -
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
