On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 21:00 -0500, Jonathan Berry wrote: > 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? I'd have thought "yum install firefox.i386" would work. I can't try myself because I don't have an AMD64 system. > 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. I agree it's not very useful for non-library packages. After a quick google session, the best reference I can find on this is: http://www.linuxtx.org/amd64faq.html Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
