FC5T2 and Development issues, observations, and questions

[Nathan Grennan]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> "overrides" are not understood by how rpm handles multilib.
> Package foo.i386 and package foo.x86_64 both provide a file
> /usr/bin/foo-madness.sh
> if both the .386 and the x86_64 version of the file are the same then
> the i386 and x86_64 packages are allow to co-exist. If the 2 versions
> of that file differ, then a conflict is raised.
>
> "overrides" imply an assumed preference and there is no way for rpm to
> know that you prefer one version of the file over the other. Which
> version of the file is what you intended to have on your system is
> situational as intepreted by the local admin.
>
>   
  I understand that it seems to be true that it conflicts on scripts if 
they aren't the same, but x86_64 binaries seem to override i386 binaries 
if both are installed. I do agree that there could be situtations where 
because of dependecies I need both arches of the package, and yet I want 
the i386 version of the binary, but that is a preexisting issue.

[root at ws ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/gconftool-2
GConf2-2.10.0-4.i386
GConf2-2.10.0-4.x86_64
[root at ws ~]$ file /usr/bin/gconftool-2
/usr/bin/gconftool-2: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 
(SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for 
GNU/Linux 2.4.0, stripped

> Yes the only way forward with this script is to make sure that the
> i386 version and the x86_64 version of the script are exactly the
> same. The same must also be true of the shared manpage.  These are
> filable issues to take up with the fedora core mozilla maintainer.
>   
  Or let the script be treated as a binary and let the x86_64 version 
override the i386 version.