On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Michel Jouvin wrote: > They don't ignore anything, they don't have it for 64-bit and are expecting > their application to run in compatibility mode without any 64-bit stuff > provided with the app. For me this is a reasonable expectation. They don't have it for 64-bit because the developers didn't build the 64 bit packages where needed. I don't understand either why the 64 bit versions of those perl/python packages which include shared-library files would not be built. An example I'm thinking of is perl-Net-SSLeay - the 64-bit version of this package is available from non-redhat sources, as is of course the src.rpm file. The glite-SE_dcache metapackage requires it, but the gLite s/w distribution (external components) only includes the 32-bit version of this package. We needed the 64-bit version of this package for dCache nodes here, as we do not and will not run dCache nodes on 32-bit OS'es. Perl and python RPMs are no longer platform independent when they include and require shared library modules. So I would be very interested in hearing from gLite people about which perl/python packages could not be rebuilt for 64-bit arch. in the non-external components of gLite. It sounds to me like the problem is being pushed to Scientific Linux, when it could be solved by building the 64-bit packages.. cheers, denice > --On jeudi 26 avril 2007 09:54 -0500 "Marc W. Mengel" <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> >> I think the issue that folks are concerned about is that they have a >> package which is a combination of: >> platform-independant python/perl code >> binary loadable python/perl module (.so file) >> which they cannot run on the 64-bit perl/python because they only have >> a 32-bit .so file. >> >> They seem to be ignoring the possiblity of shipping .so files for >> all of the platforms they want to be able run on -- that is you could >> have the ix86, the x86_64, and maybe sparc_solaris versions of the .so >> with your package so that you could run it all three places... >> >> Marc >> >> Jaroslaw Polok wrote: >>> Hi Michel >>> >>> I still fail to understand what problem are you trying >>> to solve here ....: >>> >>> Either the application in question can be ported to >>> 64 bit (so no problem ..) or not: then why to run it >>> on an 64 bit system in first place ? >>> >>> SL exists in both 32 and 64 bit variants ... >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Jarek >>> >>> __ >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> _ Jaroslaw_Polok ___________________ CERN - IT/FIO/LA _ >>> _ http://home.cern.ch/~jpolok ___ tel_+41_22_767_1834 _ >>> _____________________________________ +41_78_792_0795 _ >> > > > > ************************************************************* > * Michel Jouvin Email : [log in to unmask] * > * LAL / CNRS Tel : +33 1 64468932 * > * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404 * > * 91898 Orsay Cedex * > * France * > ************************************************************* > > -- deatrich @ triumf.ca, Science/Atlas PH: +1 604-222-7665 <*> This moment's fortune cookie: <apt> it has been said that redhat is the thing Marc Ewing wears on his head.