On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:09 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100 > Richard Hughes wrote: > > > I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle... > > Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good > idea. Starting with the total lack of documentation about how > the heck it actually works when (for instance) multilib rpms > both contain /usr/bin binaries of the same name and going > through all the problems it causes with updates (like these). It is documented it is just confusing When you have two pkgs sharing the same binary path - the pkg in the preferred/compat arch for that platform has its files installed. Except when you install them in the wrong order - and then rpm will cough out a conflict. This, I think, has been fixed in more recent changes but I'm not 100% certain of that. > > Seems to me the "problem" should always have been fixed > by simply packaging the rpms correctly with shared noarch > bits in one rpm, /lib bits in another, /lib64 bits in > another, and /bin bits in yet another. that doesn't fix the problem, though.; -sv -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
