[ATrpms-users] Re: mplayer win32codecs or firefox flash plugin on x86_64?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:37:59AM +0100, Tako Schotanus wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:00:45PM +0100, Tako Schotanus wrote:
> >>Ok, I back to testing the installation of a x86_64 system with bits of 
> >>i386 mixed in (like firefox for example).
> >>
> >>So what I did was after having installed smart + the medley package and 
> >>after having upgraded was to _add_ the i386 version of each repository 
> >>to smart's list of channels.
> >>   
> >That's a bit too much. I would only pull the ones I really need, as
> >random co-installs of applications like mplayer for 64 and 32 bits
> >will not work as you would wish.
> > 
> I understand, but I want this to be as stupid as possible, I don't want 
> to know, nor do I think should most users, which channels to add and 
> which not. If in the end we could always just add all channels it might 
> be something that could be installed as a special medley package maybe?

No, things may break more than that step would fix.

> >I think x86_64 wins.
> >
> Which would be great for most cases! If the x86_64 version always wins 
> we could safely leave the i386 repos in our channel list (that's what I 
> hope anyway :-).

Imagine the following steps:

install foo.32
install foo.64
uninstall foo.64

You are left with a broken foo.32.

So, no, placing 32 and 64 bit packages indiscriminately is asking for
troubles.

> Ok, but doesn't that mean that the repo managers should provide 32 bit 
> version for "problematic" packages? That would be fine with me... but 
> more work for you because I'll start asking for 32 bit versions for 
> several packages :-)

That would be the procedure, but I, as a repo maintainer, would not
start mixing too much of 32 bits vs 64 bits, especially not non-ATrpms
packages like firefox/java/etc.

> I haven't been able to rebuild the Java packages yet though, using 
> "rpmbuild -ba --target=i586 java-1.5.0-sun.spec" does not seem to help 
> as the spec file insists that it needs the amd64 version. Putting 
> "linux32" in front of the rpmbuild command doesn't fool it either. And 
> even commenting out all the "%if(n)arch x86_64" where they appear still 
> doesn't help, because now they build ok but the result is still a bunch 
> of x86_64 rpms!
> 
> Any ideas on how to fix that?

You should rebuild in a clean 32 bit environment. This can be a chroot
on your 64 bit system.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20051115/4c78f147/attachment.bin