On 8/3/05, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My understanding of the way Fedora multilib support works is that rpm > will allow you to simultaneously install .i386 and .x86_64 versions of > exactly the same package and it won't complain about file conflicts - it > just ignores the .i386 versions of conflicting files. This is how it was > possible for .i386 and .x86_64 versions of perl to coexist in FC3. If > you then try to update one but not the other, it breaks because the > epoch/version/release numbers aren't the same and the file conflicts are > no longer ignored. > > The OP's file conflicts were: > file /usr/bin/mozilla from install of > mozilla-1.7.10-1.5.1 conflicts with file from package mozilla-1.7.8-2 > file /usr/share/man/man1/mozilla.1.gz from install of > mozilla-1.7.10-1.5.1 conflicts with file from package mozilla-1.7.8-2 > > Different versions/releases, so that's why there was a conflict. Hmm, interesting idea, do you know of anything that might say for sure? I didn't think this was true, but I could be wrong. It would explain some of the things that have apparently happened (instances of Perl, mozilla, and gnome-panel being installed in both archs). It seems the last time I tried to install 32-bit Firefox, though, I had to first uninstall the 64-bit version. Maybe the versions were different, I don't remember, I think it was back in FC2. Some experimentation has shown that I was (with some trouble) able to install the 32-bit version without explicitly removing the 64-bit version. So perhaps you are right. However, installing the 32-bit version (with yum) seems to have removed the 64-bit version! How did that happen, I wonder? This is getting stranger all the time. Still, even if I was able to install both versions at the same time, though, there would be no easy way to run the 32-bit version because it would be masked by the 64-bit version. I'd argue that this could be a bad policy, unless the packages are made to work that way. Jonathan
