Howto handle multilib conflict?
mw_triad at users.sourceforge.net
Mon Oct 12 19:52:04 UTC 2009
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 18:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
>>> Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686
>>> -devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just the lib packages',
>> Because not all files in -devel packages cover multiple target
>> platforms. Example: You could not build for i686 with headers that
>> are specific to x86_64, and you would also need the .so symlinks for
>> libraries in the appropriate libdir.
> Well, that's only valid if we actually do anything to ensure multilib
> compilation actually *works*, right now all we enforce is that the
> packages don't conflict (which isn't the same thing at all).
Well... at $DAYJOB we *depend* on being able to compile 32-bit on 64-bit
for at least a couple products. And not just on Red Hat (and in my case,
Fedora), but also on Solaris, HP-UX, Darwin and AIX, all of which
support this just fine. (Yes, "all" includes Fedora/RH, at least for the
admittedly limited set of libs we use.)
That said, I'm not asking for it to be actually tested in Fedora, just
that if it breaks and I complain, the reply won't be "we don't care
because that is not supported and therefore it will not be fixed". IOW I
am fine with the current status quo, but I don't want to see multilib
dropped (not even sure it can be due to wine) or the policy otherwise
become explicitly hostile toward multilib compilation.
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
"The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it's simply seeking
to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It's quite revealing that Mr. Gates
equates the two." -- A government official
More information about the devel