Hi

On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 10:57, Perret Yannick wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm still playing with installation of i386 libs over a
> x86_64 SL (3.02).
>
> I tested some i386 installations using 'rpm', but it
> seems that this 'rpm' does not support it well.

That was also my impression while doing tests before
releasing SL 302 x86_64/ia64 versions.

> It accepts to install the i386 RPMs but do not
> protects original files from the x86_64 RPMs.

Same here ..

> I finally get a system with some binaries replaced
> by i386 versions (for RPMs that give binaries
> AND libraries). In addition the %post does not
> take care of this particular situation.

Same here ..

> How does this situation is handled on RHEL3 ?

As far as I can see the installer (anaconda) installs
32bit versions first, then 64bit ones.

As for the updates I would guess up2date behaves in similar way
(and then 32bit/64bit updates are coordinated ?) -
we do not run x86_64 RHEL3 here ... so this is just a
guess...

> By the way, I made a little script that extract all
> the libs from the i386 RPMs and install them
> properly on the x86_64 system. The result is fine
> (all the i386 binaries I tried work well and found
> all the needed i386 libs).
> It is a "proof of concept", but it is an 'ugly' way to
> do the things as these i386 libs are not referenced
> by 'rpm' database and so will not be updatable
> (instead by the hand).

But this script could be used to provide a package
(set of packages) providing 32bit compatibility ..
(can we have a copy, please ?)

>
> We are not using yum, but in my memory, it was
> possible with 'rpm' on RHEL3...

But on 64bit RHEL3 you have all needed 32bit libs
after initial install: have you tried to update these
later ?

Jarek

--
-------------------------------------------------------
_ Jaroslaw_Polok ___________________ CERN - IT/ADC/LE _
_ http://home.cern.ch/~jpolok ___ tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
_____________________________________ +41_78_792_0795 _