Perret,

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Perret Yannick wrote:

>
>
> 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 ?

It is done during kickstart.  Yum should understand the multiarch nature
of this release.  Small YUM issue with ia32e that we are working on.

-Connie Sieh
>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>