[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rawhide report: 20060720 changes



Le Jeu 20 juillet 2006 15:25, Erwin Rol a écrit :
> On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:20 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Believe me you're far better off with overlapping packages than a
>> multiplication of "common" packages.
>
> What is the technical reason that overlapping packages are better than
> common packages ? They still would be created from the same source rpm,
> just like the gcc source rpm "creates" a number of rpms.

common subpackages wouldn't help your conflict a little bit as sanity
would demand i386 and x86_64 require a common subpackage with the same
nevr. So instead of yum barfing because i386 and x86_64 are not in sync
you'd get yum barfing because i386 demands one common package and x86_64
another.

rpm does not support producing subpackages with differing arches from the
same srpm, you have to workaround this by launching several builds from
the same srpm (plus spec ugly logic...) this is only done for very special
packages in the buildsys

you'd get a lot of packages with one or two files in them and needlessly
bloat the package number (which would bloat repodata, make more spec
creation and translation manual work, bloat the dependency graph your rpm
has to manage...)

and probably a vouple other reasons I forget.

All this for no win, since your problem is not the way we share files
accross multiarch, but that at a given time i386 and x86_64 package sets
are not consistent with each other.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]