On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Troy Dawson wrote:

> 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 

Note that the "we" is mostly TUV.

> 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.

Note that trying to get some 32bit products to build on x86_64 is not 
easy.  We build 32bit products on x86_64 by using a i386 chroot area.  

In RHEL5b2 TUV has added alot more of the i386 -devel rpms for the x86_64 
release.

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