jonathan at jonmasters.org
Mon Oct 22 00:11:37 UTC 2007
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
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.
AFAIK, the only things in the way of a real solution are:
* Standards. These can be changed/updated.
* Packages. These can be fixed.
I'll shutup now ;-)
More information about the fedora-devel-list