Posted Jul 14, 2006 13:00 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim
In reply to: Misguided
Parent article: The end of the multiarch era?
> While this is true for the case the original poster described, it isn't
> always the case. I've seen files conflicting between different packages
> (i.e. from different source), which were playing along nicely before.
so what? broken packages happen (especially 3rd-party broken packages) and rpm correctly protects you from then
> Yeah, possibly. However, if this happens, the mirrors are obviously not
> working correctly.
To have a lot of mirrors you have to accept most of them will only use rsync/http sync/ftp sync to get your files
> Ah yes, and what happens in the case I described ?
rpm will install the packages you give it on the CLI is they are consistent. Both arches if you ask it to install both, single arch otherwise.
When resolving deps, yum follows this algorithm
- if the dep is auto-tagged with a specific arch (dynamic library...) will install whichever package provides the lib with the correct arch
- if the dep is a package name or a file in /usr/bin, if the package is already installed it will update it (using whichever package arch already exists on the system). If the package is not installed, will propose both arches
yum will *never* remove a full arch tree of already installed packages like apt likes to do. It will add a new arch tree if necessary, and warn about conflicts if needed.
This is all rpm and yum multilib 101, I have the distinct feeling you are trying to make me lose my time and temper till you can declare Fedora+rpm+yum is terminally broken, dist foo is way better. So this is my final message on the subject. You want to know more, ask on Fedora lists or install Fedora on a partition.
to post comments)