Re: amd64 and dpkg and so
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:55:43AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 09:46:58AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > I presume that the problem of x86_64 and x86 packages having the same
> > > files in /usr/share/doc et al are going to be addressed somehow ?
> > Shouldn't the 32- and 64-bit versions of a package conflict with each
> > other? Why would you want both versions installed at once?
> To run 32-bit binary alongside 64-bit binary.
But not of the same program. Presumably you don't need more than one
"ls" installed on the system at any one time.
Having 32-bit "ls" and 64-bit "awk" shouldn't create a conflict in the
/usr/share/doc directory; it would be okay (to me) to disallow having
both 32-bit and 64-bit "ls" installed simultaneously.
And email@example.com writes:
> They won't always conflict, most notably in the case of libraries.
> 64-bit libraries are in /usr/lib64 and 32-bit libraries are in
Presumably the packages for the libraries will have different names,
and thus different entries in /usr/share/doc, so again that wouldn't
be a problem. (I haven't followed the discussion about this very
> ...but there will certainly be some conflicts. For most
> applications, there's no reason to have both installed at once
> unless the user is trying to compare the two (e.g. to measure
> performance between the two).
Wouldn't it be acceptible even in this case to have to uninstall one
to install the other? Even in the 32-bit world, you may want to
compare postfix with exim, but that doesn't mean you get to have them
both installed at once.
Maybe config files are a problem...? It's possible you would have a
different config file for the 32-bit version than you would the 64-bit
version, and if the packages had the same name and kept their config
files in the same place it would be awkward to switch between them.
Though I expect that wouldn't be a huge problem in practice.