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