On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3...@me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Tomasz Pala <go...@polanet.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:47:32 +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>>>
>>> Using lib/lib64/libx32 instead of libexec was much smarter in this case.
>>
>> No, it only hidden the problem behind getconf binary being handled
>> _somehow_. I once even wondered how this is done, apparently rpm is
>> trying to be way too smart.
>>
>
> RPM implements arch specific content generally as:
>   Libraries on different paths.
>   Executables on same path.
> This requires a resolution to a preferred arch (usually x86_64) when 
> installing executables onto identical paths.
>
> Whether RPM is too smart or the requested implementation is insufficiently 
> general is arguable. For example, one might desire the ability for 
> per-file-path configurable choice of architecture rather than per-system 
> confIguration.
>

I'd probably argue that libexec should have the same multi-arch
handling that (s)bin does (primary arch "wins" and secondary arches
are ignored), though last I checked this isn't specific to paths and
should Just Work(TM).



-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en

Reply via email to