Probs with RPM on Opteron with dual 32/64 bit libraries/deps?

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 07:20, tweeks wrote:
> > Hi Tweeks, small world (:
>
> No Kidding!  Good to see you're involved here.. How many of these you
> on?

Oh, 10~15 mailing lists that are Red Hat / Fedora related, a couple IRC 
channels, stuff like that.  I was/am pretty interested in x86_64 
computing, both opteron and Intel EM64T stuff.  We sell a lot of them at 
work so I have to keep up on the technology.

> > > Trying to get a straight answer regarding (or documenting on) the
> > > schitzophrenic design issue (or lack of functionality really) that
> > > RPM has with regards to supporting BOTH 32bit and 64bit labraries on
> > > the same archecture (e.g. Opteron in this case).
> >
> > Heh, I think I know why you're writing this.  Since my home PC is
> > x86_64 and I use FC2 x86_64, I'd be more than happy to answer some
> > platform questions  you may have.  (I'll even do these for free this
> > time (:  )
>
> Actually.. I'm not writing here for Fedora... My main concern is for the
> current behavior of RH-EL3 on the Opteron and maybe what will become EL4
> (so.. maybe a little FC.. ;)

Ah, ok.  I'm not AS familiar w/ the enterprise line, but that doesn't mean 
I can't test things out and bug other people who might know.

> > Actually there is more than that.  RPM now takes arch as a variable
> > when looking at packages.  EG:  rpm -q glibc.i686 is different from
> > rpm -q glibc.x86_64.  Same goes for rpm -e and all other things.
>
> Ahh.. see... why isn't this new RPM thing published somewhere?  Is there
> an "Opteron Status" page or something that I should keep an eye on?  And
> what version of RPM did this change happen in?

Well, to be honest I only knew about it for FC, I'm not 100% sure it's in 
RHEL3.  I am asking people who know far more than me about it though (:

> > > I try to view the apprent RPM bug #126853 at the root of this issue
> > > (?) and I get:
> > > You are not authorized to access bug #126853
> > > I didn't KNOW that there were "restricted bugs" in GPL...
> >
> > If the bug has sensitive vendor information, or is a security related
> > bug, it can be closed to external viewing until such time the issue
> > can be made public or the security matter is made public.  It wouldn't
> > do to have a public bug on a potential exploit that VendorSec is
> > trying to give other vendors a chance to fix before announcing it.
>
> That's cool...
>
> Let me know if there are any other RPM/up2date/Opteron areas that I
> should be monitoring.

Well, this page is Fedora related, but still has some good info.  It was 
put together by the fellow that did most the work porting Fedora over to 
x86_64: http://www.linuxtx.org/amd64faq.html

If I find more stuff, I'll shoot it your way.

- -- 
Jesse Keating RHCE	(http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team	(http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key		(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBNI294v2HLvE71NURAizdAJ4kFnmNaZfJJStB4D7igCRnjtRhpQCcDwKC
chzJiVyKCU3jjpLqWjVyKH8=
=oYDt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----