i386 packages installed for x86_64

[Braden McDaniel]

Is it appropriate to file bugs for cases of (apparently unnecessary)
i386 packages that are installed by default as part of an x86_64
installation of Fedora 8?

If so, do these generally go against anaconda or the particular package?

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <braden(a)endoframe.com&gt;
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <braden(a)jabber.org&gt;

[Mauricio Pretto]

Most of these packages are installed for compatibility .
Can you list the ones you think are unnecessary ?

Pretto
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MauricioPretto



Braden McDaniel wrote:
>  Is it appropriate to file bugs for cases of (apparently unnecessary)
>  i386 packages that are installed by default as part of an x86_64
>  installation of Fedora 8?
>  
>  If so, do these generally go against anaconda or the particular package?
>

[David Woodhouse]

Please don't top-post. I've corrected it this time...

On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 00:49 -0200, Mauricio Pretto wrote:
>  Braden McDaniel wrote:
>  > Is it appropriate to file bugs for cases of (apparently unnecessary)
>  > i386 packages that are installed by default as part of an x86_64
>  > installation of Fedora 8?
>  > 
>  > If so, do these generally go against anaconda or the particular package? 
The bug already exists, as one of the deps of the multilib tracker bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235756

>  Most of these packages are installed for compatibility . 
That makes no sense. RPM dependencies exist to ensure that we install
libraries as and when they're actually required. What on earth is the
point in installing these libraries in advance?

Should we unconditionally install every single available library package
for x86_64, and claim that it is "for compatibility"?

>  Can you list the ones you think are unnecessary ? 
All of them are unnecessary, except the ones which are directly pulled
in as dependencies for an i386.rpm which the user explicitly chooses to
install.

-- 
dwmw2

[Braden McDaniel]

On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 06:05 -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
>  Please don't top-post. I've corrected it this time...
>  
>  On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 00:49 -0200, Mauricio Pretto wrote:
>  > Braden McDaniel wrote:
>  > > Is it appropriate to file bugs for cases of (apparently unnecessary)
>  > > i386 packages that are installed by default as part of an x86_64
>  > > installation of Fedora 8?
>  > > 
>  > > If so, do these generally go against anaconda or the particular package?
>  
>  The bug already exists, as one of the deps of the multilib tracker bug:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235756 
Thank you.

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <braden(a)endoframe.com&gt;
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <braden(a)jabber.org&gt;

[Richi Plana]

On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 06:05 -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
>  Please don't top-post. I've corrected it this time...
>  
>  On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 00:49 -0200, Mauricio Pretto wrote:
>  > Braden McDaniel wrote:
>  > > Is it appropriate to file bugs for cases of (apparently unnecessary)
>  > > i386 packages that are installed by default as part of an x86_64
>  > > installation of Fedora 8?
>  > > 
>  > > If so, do these generally go against anaconda or the particular package?
>  
>  The bug already exists, as one of the deps of the multilib tracker bug:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235756
>  
>  > Most of these packages are installed for compatibility .
>  
>  That makes no sense. RPM dependencies exist to ensure that we install
>  libraries as and when they're actually required. What on earth is the
>  point in installing these libraries in advance? 
+1. Truth be told, some of the native x86_64 packages are questionable.
Adding their i386 equivalent just compounds to the problem 4-fold. This
has been discussed several times. I'm not sure what the near- and
long-term resolutions are for this issue, but it would be nice to get
something out there that we can refer future posts like this to.

Personally, I do a "yum remove *.i386" and let yum add the i386
libraries I need compatibility for (nspluginwrapper for flash and glibc
for my Brother printer's drivers). It's a waste of bandwidth,
electricity, time, etc. and I'm not sure what it serves to accomplish,
particularly since yum does automatic installations of i386 libs if
noobie user happens to install i386 apps via the user-friendly GUI.
--

Richi Plana

[Braden McDaniel]

On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 00:49 -0200, Mauricio Pretto wrote:
>  Most of these packages are installed for compatibility . 
With what?

>  Can you list the ones you think are unnecessary ? 
        evolution
        evolution-data-server
        python
        rhythmbox
        boost
        subversion
        hpijs
        gphoto2
        gnome-media
        SDL
        metacity
        gnome-desktop
        graphviz
        nautilus-cd-burner
        planner
        gstreamer
        
Not a complete list, I'm sure.

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <braden(a)endoframe.com&gt;
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <braden(a)jabber.org&gt;