On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Jaroslaw Polok wrote: > > > > > > It is a step in the way forward. It definatly is much better than not having > > > the i386 rpm's in the x86_64. > > > > I agree. I'm just afraid the colleagues from CERN won't like it because > > apt can't handle this yet. But then, rumours say that it's being worked > > on. > > Colleagues at CERN ;-) also added these for Scientific Linux CERN 3.0.3 > (release candidate just out today): > > The initial system installation will handle above without any problem > (of course ;-)): it is true that currently apt cannot do multi-arch > updates but: > > - x86_64/ia64 are not our production environments right now (and > still for some time to come) > > - apt can be easily extended via LUA scripts (so if there's an > upgrade on 32 bit packages on 64bit system we can hook-up a > workaround script using rpm directly - for example) > > - we can provide one-time off scripts to do 32bit upgrades/installs > using rpm ... > > (yes ... most of above is not too 'nice' .. but better than nothing) > > - indeed apt people (;-)) are working on multi-arch (.. not very > fast though ...) > > > > > The nasty part is that if you have the x86_64 package installed, and then > > install and remove the i386 package, all files shared between them are gone. > > > > .. yep .. (I've also seen inconsistent overwrites of binaries depending > on the order of 32/64 bit install/remove/update operations ...) > > > And yum refuses to install kernel-unsupported.ia32e on my shiny > > new EM64T test system because it insists that x86_64 is the one and only > > architecture I should install for. > > (isn't it because your yum.conf contains exactarch=1 ?) I think there is a patch to yum that will make this work. I found out about it after the release went out. -Connie Sieh > > > But I expect all this to work eventually. And since I looked into RHEL4 > > beta 1, and they're doing it just the same way there, it's probably the > > way to go, ugly or not. > > It looks like ... personally I would prefer much more SuSE/Debian > packaging: 32bit packages are recognized by name alike: > XXXX-32bit-VVV.RRR > (this needs of course extra package building ... versus copying from > i386 build) > > .. but I guess we have to live with Red Hat way ... > > Jarek ([log in to unmask]) > > -- > general signature fault ... >