airlied at redhat.com
Mon Oct 22 10:14:36 UTC 2007
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 20:11 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:18 +0100, Ian Chapman wrote:
> > Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > The current multilib solution in rpm is far from pretty, it works well,
> > > but definitively has downsides. I think as is its a reasonable
> > > comprimise, lets not add bandaids and patches to it for issues which
> > > should be solved elsewhere, I feel the pain of maintainers getting these
> > > bugs (I got 15 of them), but they are fixable without requiring the
> > > addition of yet another multilib kludge to rpm.
> > Well the question is still really where should these issues ultimately
> > be solved? Is kludging the rpms any more elegant than patching rpm? I
> > must admit I have no idea how other distro's deal with these kind of
> > issues.
> Without ranting aimlessly, IMO the only real solution is to stop
> kludging rpm, yum, etc. and split out multilib libraries properly - and
> if needed, seek and get approval for a bin64/bin32 with alternatives
> system. Hacking RPM to simply ignore the fact that two packages provide
> the same file is not the solution.
I have to agree, I didn't know about the stupid bin behaviour and
recently started flushing 64-bit packages from my ppc64 machine, and
ended up removing a fair few files from /usr/bin that were still being
provided by the 32-bit packages.
it just screamed kludge to me..
More information about the fedora-devel-list