SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure [LWN.net]

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 25, 2010 13:59 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by error27
Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

The solution adopted is not a fat RPM containing several versions, but separate (but coordinated) RPMs for the different architectures. Look at current Fedora repositories for x86_64, they have packages for 32 and 64 bits. If I want to install one or the other or both, I can do so. No need for 32-bit people do get the for them useless 64-bit versions, no need for pure 64-bit systems to be burdened with 32 bit stuff.

(Log in to post comments)

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 26, 2010 18:13 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

So which package includes /usr/bin/hello ? The i386 one? The amd64 one? The i686-with-uclibc one? The armel (v4) one?

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 27, 2010 11:59 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

All of them, the package management software is aware of your preferred architecture and will install that package. Packages which provide dependencies (e.g. a library) can be multiply installed, so that both the 32-bit and 64-bit library are installed, each from its own package.

This stuff has all been working and in everyday use for some time.