On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19:44PM -0600, Kevin DeKorte wrote: > > But I do think that it is a little odd that xulrunner was extracted out > of the firefox/mozilla/epiphany packages so that you could use it as a > base for other applications and yet you cannot have the x86_64 and i386 > versions of it installed so that if you have an app that you can't > compile it can still use the common libs. It appears that packaging gets in the way. /usr/bin/firefox is a shell script, which is common to x86_64 and i386 packages, and which finds "real" binaries to run. Those reside in separate directories for i386 and x86_64 so there is no conflict. There are few other common files as well but they are really common so the same principle applies. With xulrunner /usr/bin/xulrunner ends up as a symlink to /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9pre/xulrunner and /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9pre/xulrunner respectively so you have a conflict right there. Actually a target of this symlink is also a shell script and at the first glance there is nothing there architecture dependent; but even if I missed something then /usr/bin/xulrunner can be trivially replaced by a script common to both architectures and doing 'exec ...' on what now is a corresponding symlink target. > Maybe we need a xulrunner-libs (where you can have the x86_64 and i386 > packages installed in parallel) and xulrunner (only one) packages? It does not even look that this is needed but packages has to be put together in a slightly different way (and/or the current xulrunner script possibly slightly adjusted). Can you file a bugzilla asking for that? It looks that you may have some uses for such layout. Michal -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
