On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Christopher Chan <christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote: > > > 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.
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Evan -- 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
