Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
Hello everbody,
can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages
at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh?
- http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/gmp/gmp-mparam.h?view=co
-
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/e2fsprogs/ext2_types-wrapper.h?view=co
- http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/apr/apr-wrapper.h?view=co
- http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/openssl/opensslconf-new.h?view=co
Where's the reason to have a whatever-archname.h if there's no multilib
available on that architecture? From my point of view, multilib wrappers
only make sense on the architectures %{ix86}/x86_64, ppc/ppc64, s390/s390x,
%{sparc}/%{sparcx} and %{mips}/%{mipsel}/%{mipsx}. Tell me, if I'm wrong,
but %{arm}, alpha, ia64 and sh are single-lib, ie. they've only 32 or 64
bit and no multi-arch.
I've already raised up the question to the package maintainers, and Joe
has suggested me to ask on fedora-devel for the correct list or reasons
for the current behaviour.
Greetings,
Robert
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
Once upon a time, Robert Scheck said:
> can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages
> at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh?
multiarch != multilib
Just for starters, long before x86_64 came into the picture, we had
i386, i486, i586, and i686. On Alpha, you have (IIRC) ev4, ev5, ev6,
ev67, etc.
When the distro was i386 targeted, we still had a few packages (where it
made a performance difference) that were built for i386, i586, and i686,
all of which are %{ix86}.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
Robert Scheck wrote: > can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages > at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh? Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef) when adding a secondary arch.) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Chris Adams wrote:
> Just for starters, long before x86_64 came into the picture, we had
> i386, i486, i586, and i686. On Alpha, you have (IIRC) ev4, ev5, ev6,
> ev67, etc.
You have seen, that these wrappers treat alpha as alpha and %{ix86} as i386
and that's it?! So your explanation doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.
Greetings,
Robert
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always > add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef) > when adding a secondary arch.) Well, how would it help to have a wrapper for ia64 if no non-ia64 packages are getting installed on ia64? Replace ia64 by alpha and rerun my question. Why a wrapper file, if there's nothing, that could conflict? Greetings, Robert -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Robert Scheck wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always >> add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef) >> when adding a secondary arch.) > > Well, how would it help to have a wrapper for ia64 if no non-ia64 packages > are getting installed on ia64? Replace ia64 by alpha and rerun my question. > Why a wrapper file, if there's nothing, that could conflict? > Because as a Fedora packager, neither am I responsible nor do I care about ia64 packages. Replace ia64 by alpha (or any other secondary arch) and rerun my answer. Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Because as a Fedora packager, neither am I responsible nor do I care > about ia64 packages. Replace ia64 by alpha (or any other secondary > arch) and rerun my answer. Sorry, but wrong answer for a Fedora packager. If you lack knowledge, you should try to get the missing knowledge. And some of the architectures I mentioned in my initial e-mail are secondary architectures of Fedora, thus they shouldn't get ignored or wrong handled. Greetings, Robert -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
Robert Scheck writes: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always >> add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef) >> when adding a secondary arch.) > Well, how would it help to have a wrapper for ia64 if no non-ia64 packages > are getting installed on ia64? Kevin already told you: it simplifies the specfile to not have the install action be conditional on the arch. I think it's pretty much up to the individual package maintainer's taste which way to handle it. Personally I don't use multilib wrappers on arches that don't need it; I think not needing extra cases in the wrapper header outweighs the added complexity in the specfile. But I'm not going to tell the gmp maintainer he's wrong for doing it the other way. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
Tom Lane wrote: > Personally I don't use multilib wrappers on arches that don't need it; > I think not needing extra cases in the wrapper header outweighs the > added complexity in the specfile. But I'm not going to tell the gmp > maintainer he's wrong for doing it the other way. +1 -- Rex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't use multilib wrappers on arches that don't need it;
>> I think not needing extra cases in the wrapper header outweighs the
>> added complexity in the specfile. But I'm not going to tell the gmp
>> maintainer he's wrong for doing it the other way.
>
> +1
>
> -- Rex
Heh, so I have it both ways in my packages, xfsprogs does it only for
(hand-defined) %{multilib_arches}, e2fsprogs does it for all, inherited
via cut and paste.
If someone who cared provided some nice rpm macros to work with, perhaps
we'd easily have the best of both worlds. :)
-Eric
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why a multilib wrapper for non-multilib architectures?!
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:57 +0200, Robert Scheck wrote:
> Hello everbody,
>
> can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages
> at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh?
>
> - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/gmp/gmp-mparam.h?view=co
> -
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/e2fsprogs/ext2_types-wrapper.h?view=co
> - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/apr/apr-wrapper.h?view=co
> - http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/openssl/opensslconf-new.h?view=co
>
> Where's the reason to have a whatever-archname.h if there's no multilib
> available on that architecture? From my point of view, multilib wrappers
> only make sense on the architectures %{ix86}/x86_64, ppc/ppc64, s390/s390x,
> %{sparc}/%{sparcx} and %{mips}/%{mipsel}/%{mipsx}. Tell me, if I'm wrong,
> but %{arm}, alpha, ia64 and sh are single-lib, ie. they've only 32 or 64
> bit and no multi-arch.
>
> I've already raised up the question to the package maintainers, and Joe
> has suggested me to ask on fedora-devel for the correct list or reasons
> for the current behaviour.
In case of openssl the only arch which is handled as multiarch and so
the wrapper is added is ia64. It is done like that for historical
reasons and it doesn't break anything. Newly added non-multiarch
architectures are not added to the wrapper.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
