> I don't mean to be a "[citation needed] troll", but I've honestly never > heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how > RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding was that as long as > you installed ia32-libs then you shouldn't have to do anything else; the > software having problems in this thread is some sort of anomaly. >
It probably is not rpm being better than deb. But right now most 32-bit library packages cannot just be installed on a 64-bit installation. 32-bit packages will take over /usr/lib 'namespace' in a 64-bit installation when they should be stuffing themselves under /usr/lib32. It is as if you need to have a separate repository for 64-bit distros just so that their 32-bit library packages can be told to make their home in /usr/lib32 and not try to take over /usr/lib which really belongs to 64-bit libraries on a 64-bit installation. In fact, this is exactly how Fedora and RHEL work. They have a separate repository for 32-bit distros and for 64-bit distros. The 64-bit distros' repos have both 32-bit and 64-bit packages which are going to stick their contents in the places. The problem therefore is the way packaging is currently done and the repository architecture. That is why you have to resort to an uber ia32-libs package which is really not a solution at all but a cloth being tied around a leak of a pipe. It helps but does not completely solve the problem. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
