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

Re: Howto handle multilib conflict?

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).

Well... at $DAYJOB we *depend* on being able to compile 32-bit on 64-bit for at least a couple products. And not just on Red Hat (and in my case, Fedora), but also on Solaris, HP-UX, Darwin and AIX, all of which support this just fine. (Yes, "all" includes Fedora/RH, at least for the admittedly limited set of libs we use.)

That said, I'm not asking for it to be actually tested in Fedora, just that if it breaks and I complain, the reply won't be "we don't care because that is not supported and therefore it will not be fixed". IOW I am fine with the current status quo, but I don't want to see multilib dropped (not even sure it can be due to wine) or the policy otherwise become explicitly hostile toward multilib compilation.

Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
"The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it's simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It's quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two." -- A government official

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