On Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 23:20, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 23:04 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 22:50, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Hello,
Does anybody know why we are still using %{?_isa} thing?
DNF/libsolv forcefully install 64bit package for any 32bit package in transaction. So it is not possible to get 32bit package without 64bit counterpart.
Huh? You can't be serious. I've been keeping a 32bit-only set of wine packages on my machine for quite some time and I'd be quite annoyed if I suddenly had to install all corresponding 64bit ones, too.
Well, I am pretty serious. I think you just didn't notice all those 64bit packages because you had them already installed.
$ sudo dnf install wine [â¦] libatomic i686 7.2.1-6.fc28 rawhide 40 k libatomic x86_64 7.2.1-6.fc28 rawhide 40 k [â¦]
Wrong. I keep close watch on what packages I have installed. I only have 32bit wine installed at the moment, so your statement seems untrue: $ rpm -qa wine* |grep i686 |wc -l 3 $ rpm -qa wine* |grep x86_64 |wc -l 0
When did you implement this change and for which Fedora release?
Since DNF was implemented?
Apparently it's not implemented like you described.
[...]
So then what's the reason of using %{?_isa}? Just some old cruft from yum era? Can we drop it? Thoughts?
The reason is to ensure 64bit subpackages dependency on main package won't be satisfied by a 32bit counterpart and vice-versa. This has always been the case.
Except that 64bit package is always pulled in â no need for pulling 32bit package. Yeah, requiring 32bit package from 64bit one (aka wine) is different case (it doesn't really use %{?_isa}) and is valid one.
I never said anything about cross-bitness requirements. You misunderstood. And I've just demonstrated that dnf doesn't always pull in 64bit package when 32bit counterpart is being installed.
Regards, Dominik