Spilt libperl from perl

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:31 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:26:46AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > We should fix our packaging so that these file conflicts don't exist
> > Bug #235757 covers this, as does the subject line of this thread. 
> 
> This should certainly also be considered by FESCo and the packaging 
> commitee: if it enters the guidelines it should be fairly easy to push
> packagers to fix their packages -- even before binaries conflict.

We can probably also make RPM notice this when the package is created.
If a package provides a file in /usr/lib64 and a file in /usr/bin, then
it's a fairly safe bet that the 32-bit version of that same package will
conflict with it.

> I don't think autoconf itself is a show stopper. And anyway these are
> bugs outside of fedora (ie upstream). Allowing people to develop i386
> apps on a x86_64 box would help solving thoses issues. I don't think we
> should force developpers to use chroots for building normal packages
> on fedora, but instead leave them the choice, be it only to leave them
> the opportunity to fix their packages to build right in multilib
> environment and be able to spot bugs in the tools (like pkgconfig
> issues).

I agree. They should have the _option_ of installing all the wrong-arch
development stuff and debugging the resulting autocrap and pkg-config
problems, if they like that kind of pain. I'm just saying that we
shouldn't install all that wrong-arch stuff by _default_.

-- 
dwmw2