Howto handle multilib conflict?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 22:25 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 16:41 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> >>> It's not to be considered a bug, AFAIK. We don't stipulate that
> >>> development packages be installable side-by-side in this way, we only
> >>> stipulate that for library packages where there's a need for it. There's
> >>> no particular use case where you absolutely need both -devel packages
> >>> installed at once.
> >>>
> >> I believe this is incorrect.  devel packages are supposed to be multilib
> >> installable.  There's two things that are two files that conflict above and
> >> there's two different fixes for each.
> >
> > I'm happy to be wrong :), but is this documented anywhere? That's why I
> > thought the opposite was the case, I couldn't find anything to this
> > effect in the packaging documentation when I was starting out.
> >
> 
> Well, I know it is documented that file conflicts are never allowed, ever, 
> at all w/o an explicit conflicts: in the spec file.

Ah, yeah. That would cover it without any need for a specific multilib
policy, for sure. (I checked, and libotf-devel i686 is in the x86-64
repo).

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', but it
does explain for sure that I was wrong in my initial reply, sorry for
that!

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net