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. Interesting. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature