Perret Yannick wrote:

> Perret Yannick wrote:
>
>> (...)
>> For the second point, the only way should be to use 'rpm' to handle the
>> i386 RPMs in the same way than the x64_64 ones.
>> I think I will have a look to the current 'rpm' sources to see if this
>> can
>> be integrated...
>>
> Many many problems with that...
>
> First of all i386 and x86_64 RPMs conflict if they have at least a common
> file (i.e. a binary). So in order to install i386 and then x86_64 you
> should
> have to use '--force' for the last one.

Actually, there is some logic in rpm to eliminate conflicts, seems to
work reliably for binaries at least.  Do you have an rpm that this fails
for on binaries? I can try it on my system.

>
> And in any cases updates/erases failed to work fine because the two RPMs
> share the same name, some files are shared and so one of the RPMs failed
> to find the files, and uninstall scripts should not appreciate that
> someone
> remove some files previously.

Given that there are some issues with installs, updates/erases are
likely even less reliable...

Scripts seem even more problematic at the moment, due to all the odd
things that rpm authors might do.

>
> So a kind of external action should be used to manage properly the dual
> installation... It's a pitty.

It seems that the compatiblity system is reasonable; problems with
individual rpm packages should be reported back to the packager...

Cheers,
Tom