Connie Sieh wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
Oh, great!
It's a good thing, as I'm preparing the migration from 3.02 to 3.03 :o)

At which stage this is done ? We are still installing our machines
with kickstart and we still not use yum. Does it will be supported
through kickstart installation or should we have a additionnal stage
to perform the i386 installation ?

Thanks,
--
Yannick


>-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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>