[Fedora-packaging] Re: -devel arch dependencies

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Thu Apr 12 19:02:01 UTC 2007

Matthias Saou schrieb:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote :
>> Le Jeu 12 avril 2007 17:07, Matthew Miller a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:44AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>>>> I doubt that we have any statistics on people willingly using multilib,
>>>> but I know I got it on my x86_64 machine and I sure as hell didn't want
>>>> it for anything besides firefox.
>>> +1,000,000. :)
>> I'm full 64bit on my box precisely because flash was not worth the pain of
>> dealing with multilib
> The only computer where I have left multilib packages installed is my
> main workstation, to get 32bit firefox, but in my case too it's the
> only thing I wanted... that's the first issue.

Well, I have firefox.i386 on my x86_64 machines, too. The only other
x86-apps I use now and then is acroread (which has some i386 deps),
where evince doesn't work (forms).

> The second issue is yum's default behaviour of installing all available
> archs for the requested package, which annoys me quite a lot. Today
> alone I had to re-run yum quite a few times after wanting to install
> some devel packages I needed to phpize some PHP modules... no, I don't
> want the 32bit devel package! ;-)

+1 -- Agreed. Is really bad for *-devel.i386 packages IMHO, as they
track in lots of i386-userland packages that are hard to get rid of
cleanly, because
- the bug of rpm that removes some of the some files that are parts of
both the i386 and the x86_64 package (docs for example iirc)
- "package-cleanup --leaves all" doesn't find all of them (#235496)
- something as I just forgot again

I actually had a rant about it in my blog some days ago
(which received a reply from dwmw2 at
http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/diary.html?start=160 )

Maybe we should move this discussion to fedora-devel? This is something
for FESCo afaics, and not for the PC.

> [...]


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list