With SL303, a small set of i386 libraries gets installed at
install-time.  (One can list the i386 rpms included in the x86_64 tree
of the distro...)  The issues that Perret has discussed with adding
libraries will still be relevant...

-Tom

Connie Sieh wrote:

>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>