It should be possible with the SL 303 x86_64 to just install normal.
This give both i386 and x86-64 libraries and thus provides i386
compatibility on x86_64 systems.

-connie sieh
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Perret
Yannick wrote:

> Hello,
>
> some times ago I sent a little script that extracts and installs
> i386 libs to provide i386 compatibility on x86_64 systems.
>
> I have installed a set of 32 i386 machines (dual opterons) which
> are used in production in our farm.
> I also installed an additionnal machine in x86_64 with the
> full i386 libraries.
>
> Here is some notes about that, if other people wanted to do the
> same :
>
> First, many RPMs only provides libraries, not symlinks. And in
> some cases it is not always possible to guess what symlinks
> should be created. It is so difficult to make a full automatic
> process for that. I had to do some minor job by the hand.
>
> Second, some x86_64 RPMs do not exists in the i386 repository,
> or with a different version number. You have to make the choice
> to ignore it or install the older/newer one. Please remember that
> only libs should be installed. No executable/config file sould
> be copied, as they would overwrite existing ones (from the x86_64
> installation).
>
> Third, be sure to add the new library pathes (i386) in /etc/ld.so.conf
> so that all will be found be the dynamic linker (in particular 32 bits
> versions of X11 libraries).
>
> Fourth, do not forget the x86_64 package for i386 libs (something
> like *32*.x86_64.rpm), which gives the glibc).
>
>
> At last, I get a 64 bits system with the full set of 32 bits libraries.
> I added it in the production farm, and jobs run without any problems.
> By the way we use openAFS, and of course the sysname for the 64 bits
> machine is the same than for the 32 bits machines.
>
>
> So the conclusions :
> - it is possible to have a 64 bits system (for performance reasons) with
> a full 32 bits set of libs (for compatibility). At this time we do not met
> any problems (but it is for batch, not for interactive machines... users
> can be _very_ more inventive and discover bugs...)
> - installing the 32 bits libraries "by the hand" is not a good thing for
> several reasons:
>    - it is complicated
>    - we can miss some things which are done in the post-installation scripts
>    - we do not have a way to manage updates properly
>
> For the first point it is a good thing, because we can have a smooth
> evolution between 32 bits and 64 bits systems.
>
> 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...
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yannick Perret
>