[F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:07:43PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:13 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Which is only needed once you start allowing (in your concept) files
> > of one "color" to be overwritable by another.
> 
> Allowing that was always a mistake. It needs to die.
> 
> > > 'punched install/remove holes'? 
> > 
> > See a prvious mail, but for the sake of context:
> > 
> > yum install foo.i386
> > yum install foo.x86_64
> 
> Error. Files from foo.x86_64 conflict with files from foo.i386. 
> 
> > yum remove foo.x86_64
> 
> Error. foo.x86_64 is not installed.
> 
> > rpm -V foo
> 
> Works fine.

God, I hate it when people trim away the important parts. Aow you
assume again your model of "review everything once again, we'll split
off all bins by F10-F11", but I'm still in this year, and want Fedora
to do something more then rereviewing all its specfiles several times
a year.

> > > I'm listening.... be specific. How does it work?
> > 
> > -%_bindir                %{_exec_prefix}/bin
> > -%_sbindir               %{_exec_prefix}/sbin
> > -%_libexecdir            %{_exec_prefix}/libexec
> > +%_bindir                %{_exec_prefix}/bin64
> > +%_sbindir               %{_exec_prefix}/sbin64
> > +%_libexecdir            %{_exec_prefix}/%{_lib}
> > 
> > And sure, there will be packages with hardcoded bindirs to /usr/bin,
> > which we'll automatically detect on the first rebuild.
> 
> And all binaries are built with matching rpath? And to look in
> %{_exec_prefix}/%{_lib} for dlopen, etc.? 

I don't see why not, but I also don't see what it buy us.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070426/e51fb031/attachment.sig>