<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Stepan Kasal wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20070821192915.GA5246@camelia.ucw.cz." type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:13:55PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Stepan Kasal wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">First, "perl" and "perl-libs" require each other; this is a usual
solution of the multilib problem
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><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>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Um, but if <foo>-libs Requires: foo , wouldn't that pull foo into
the multilib mix too, no? Am I missing something?<br>
<br>
-- Rex<br>
</body>
</html>