Howto handle multilib conflict?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:17:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 18:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
> > 
> > > Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686
> > > -devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just the lib packages',
> > 
> > Because not all files in -devel packages cover multiple target
> > platforms. Example: You could not build for i686 with headers that
> > are specific to x86_64, and you would also need the .so symlinks for
> > libraries in the appropriate libdir.
> 
> Well, that's only valid if we actually do anything to ensure multilib
> compilation actually *works*, right now all we enforce is that the
> packages don't conflict (which isn't the same thing at all). I hope I'm
> not dragging him into the conversation unwillingly, but Colin Walters
> raised those points on IRC:
> 
Well.. not really.  it's valid if the goal is to allow people to do multilib
compilation.  Testing that the goal hasbeen met is a separate issue.

As for feature creep -- that may be.  I'm operating under the assumption
that this is a feature as there was amessage to the list stating that this
was a current goal.  It could be that someone posted it but it was only
their opinion of what needed to be done, not an actual fact.  Would someone
or someones care to put this up for discussion at FESCo and present
rationale for and against it?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091012/a27b617c/attachment.sig>