Glenn Morris wrote:
> Glenn Morris wrote:
> 
>> Maybe I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. Because the same
>> thing also seems to be true for libjpeg-devel, libpng-devel,
>> libtiff-devel, etc...
> 
> ... in other words, I guess I'm supposed to be able to _run_ i386
> binaries on x86_64, but not _compile_ them. (Though it does seem odd
> to me that the libfoo.so symlinks get relegated to the devel
> packages).
> 
> Apologies for working this out on the list!

Hi Glenn,
You came to the correct conclusion before I was able to respond.
The ultimate goal of x86_64 is to have everything run 64 bit.
But that's not realistic, because there are still lots of programs that 
only run 32 bit.
So whenever possible, everything is x86_64 (64 bit).
If that isn't possible, we put in the 32 bit version, and all it's 
supporting 32 bit dependencies.
For the development rpm's, we only put in the 64 bit devel rpm's, unless 
it just has to be 32 bit.  It's quite rare that we put in 32 bit devel 
rpm's.  Mainly because we're looking at the ultimate goal, of everything 
being 64 bit.
People can get the 32 bit devel rpm's from the i386 tree if they want.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/CSS  CSI Group
__________________________________________________