On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 23:39 +0200, Christian Krause wrote:
On 05/31/2011 11:43 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 09:01:00PM +0200, Christian Krause wrote:
>> On 05/31/2011 06:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> However, even if it would be easy for packages like "monodevelop",
>> contain only C# assemblies and no ELF libraries there may be problems
>> with packages like f-spot, which contains mostly C# assemblies but also
>> include one "glue code" ELF library. Should the package then be
>> That sounds a little bit like overkill just for the purpose of having
>> 100% pure correctness of the packages without solving any real problems.
> Well, it seems like the problems with conflicts between x86 and x86_64 would
> be solved by making noarch packages. The splitting of packages is just
Since the mono runtime environment contains arch-dependent executables
(e.g. /usr/bin/mono), it will never be possible to install both the x86
and the x86_64 stack on x86_64. So multi-arch seems to be impossible
This is true for python too, but there is still some multilibness. But
even assuming that's true...
On the other hand, since the C# assemblies are exchangeable between
and x86_64, it should be possible to have a shared /usr/lib directory
even without splitting the packages.
Hm, just because a package contains arch-dependent and
libraries, this does not automatically call for separating the
arch-independent parts into noarch packages. Just look at all python or
perl packages which come with e.g. arch-independent python/perl
parts/libraries and additionally contain ELF binary parts or not
splitted. These packages are just then arch-dependent.
A significant number of python packages are split (Eg. yum has it's
"native" parts in a separate package).
One of the reasons for this is that if you have say f-spot-cmd and
f-spot, where just the former is native ... you get to save storing all
of the *.dll etc. files N times. This can add up quickly given a
significant number of packages and architectures.
> OTOH, with other languages (for instance python) only some
things end up
> multilibbed. For instance, python-libs (from the python package) is
> multilib and pygtk2-devel is multilib (but not pygtk2 itself).
> python-pycurl is an example of a package that is not multilibbed. So... eh,
> your argument makes enough sense to me.
Just to avoid misunderstandings: What do you specifically mean with
multilibbed? The ability to install both packages (i686 and x86_64) on
x86_64 without getting any conflicts?