[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> bob@proulx.com (Bob Proulx) writes:
> > This has been a long standing behavior of rpm that is now
> > exploited for use in biarch.
> That sounds like there is no special biarch support at all in rpm but
> just the support to have multiple versions of a package installed and
> incidentaly that can be used for this too. Lucky break for rpm I
> guess.
> This is quite similar to very early biarch proposals.

Mostly I believe that to be true.  But the dependency management seems
to be split into an architecture specific area.  Not sure of the
underlying details.

> > depends upon 'libm.so.6()(64bit)' fine.
> Now that '(64bit)' is something they had to add for biarch support.

I believe that is the only addition for biarch support.  I can't see
anything else different from the outside of the box.

> There was talk about doing the same for multiarch early on but it
> breaks backwards compatibility, i.e. old packages that don't have the
> (64bit) will break.

Hmm... I think the (64bit) only exists on packages built for amd64.
The 32-bit packages of course don't have it since those are from pure
32-bit single architecture systems.  So I think it is only the newly
built 64-bit packages that state that dependency.

> We improved that by having libraries state "Multiarch: yes" and have
> dpkg then match the arch of the lib and depending package to see if
> thats enough.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: