Tom,

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Tom Rockwell wrote:

> 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...

Yes if the library rpms overwrite things they will still do so.  The list
of i386 rpms that are included is the same as what RedHat includes so one
would hope that there is not too much of "confilicting" files.

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