Hi On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 10:57, Perret Yannick wrote: > Hello, > > I'm still playing with installation of i386 libs over a > x86_64 SL (3.02). > > I tested some i386 installations using 'rpm', but it > seems that this 'rpm' does not support it well. That was also my impression while doing tests before releasing SL 302 x86_64/ia64 versions. > It accepts to install the i386 RPMs but do not > protects original files from the x86_64 RPMs. Same here .. > I finally get a system with some binaries replaced > by i386 versions (for RPMs that give binaries > AND libraries). In addition the %post does not > take care of this particular situation. Same here .. > How does this situation is handled on RHEL3 ? As far as I can see the installer (anaconda) installs 32bit versions first, then 64bit ones. As for the updates I would guess up2date behaves in similar way (and then 32bit/64bit updates are coordinated ?) - we do not run x86_64 RHEL3 here ... so this is just a guess... > By the way, I made a little script that extract all > the libs from the i386 RPMs and install them > properly on the x86_64 system. The result is fine > (all the i386 binaries I tried work well and found > all the needed i386 libs). > It is a "proof of concept", but it is an 'ugly' way to > do the things as these i386 libs are not referenced > by 'rpm' database and so will not be updatable > (instead by the hand). But this script could be used to provide a package (set of packages) providing 32bit compatibility .. (can we have a copy, please ?) > > We are not using yum, but in my memory, it was > possible with 'rpm' on RHEL3... But on 64bit RHEL3 you have all needed 32bit libs after initial install: have you tried to update these later ? Jarek -- ------------------------------------------------------- _ Jaroslaw_Polok ___________________ CERN - IT/ADC/LE _ _ http://home.cern.ch/~jpolok ___ tel_+41_22_767_1834 _ _____________________________________ +41_78_792_0795 _