On Friday 25 April 2008 03:43:10 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > Hi Jarod, > > First of all, thanks for the quick and insightful reply.
No problem, always happy to try to help. > > The unversioned .so symlinks are provided by the -devel packages, notice > > how neither libXpm lists a libXpm.so, they have libXpm.so.4 and > > libXpm.so.4.11.0. It looks like you have libXpm-devel.x86_64 installed, > > but not > > libXpm-devel.i386 installed. > > Sorry about that, I had simply forgotten about the -devel chars in my own > output. So it's OK to have both libXpm-devel.x86_64 and libXpm-devel.i386 > in this example? It should be. > >> If I need a 32bit/i386 libfl.a to compile 32bit progs on this x86_64 > >> RHEL5, might I be able to add flex-2.5.4a-41.fc6.i386.rpm from the i386 > >> el5 distribution media without causing side-effects to my x86_64 OS? > > > > As long as the package doesn't have any multilib file conflicts, no > > reason it should cause any other badness that I can think of. > > How should I evaluate/review a package to check for multilib conflicts? > Single %config for both x86_64 and i386, etc...? Anything automated that > exists? Easiest way to tell is to simply try to install the i386 variant with the x86_64 one already installed, and rpm will scream at you if there are conflicts. > >> I don't understand some of the design decisions here... If someone could > >> shed some light, > > > > Multilib is tricky. Some things don't make sense as multilib, while > > others definitely do, but are difficult to make multilib for assorted > > reasons (for example, packages can have overlap that requires retooling > > the packages). So a lot of things were automatically made multilib, > > because they had -devel sub-packages, and didn't introduce any conflicts, > > while other stuff has had to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The > > criteria for what gets multilib treatment is still evolving. > > Ok, thanks for the clarification. It's great to see my questions were > somewhat justified. :) Yeah, definitely. Multilib is a simultaneous blessing and curse... :) > > If you have a compelling reasons for why a package that isn't multilib > > should be, I'd say file a bugzilla. > > Ok, first I'll try to see any I can evaluate 'multilib' for most of the > i386 el5 package I'd need and then I'll file bz's as needed. So it should > be OK to pull basic library packages from the i386 version of el5 and > apply/install them on the x86_64 version as long as I am carefully > checking for multilib conflicts? Generally speaking, yes, I'm not aware of any damage this would cause. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
