Re: apt-rpm & 64-bit Fedora Core 4
Axel Thimm <[email protected]> Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:27:02 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.conectiva.apt-rpm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============1446851911== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig" Content-Disposition: inline --H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:46:19AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > Axel Thimm said: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:38:47PM -0500, Jim Faulkner wrote: > >> I take it that apt-rpm does not work with 64-bit Fedora? It works fine > >> with 64-bit Suse, but that is probably because Suse intelligently names > >> their packages based on their architecture. > > > >> If not, is 64-bit Fedora going to be supported in a future version > >> of apt-rpm? > > > > Only if you are willing to give up multilib: > > >=20 > ...or desperate enough to use this hideous kludge of a patch :) >=20 > This isn't real multilib support for apt by any means, but it'll allow > using apt-rpm in presence of multilib packages. It works by renaming > multilib packages internally so that all packages listed in > RPM::Allow-MultiArch:: become > pkgname -> pkgname.x86_64 > pkgname -> pkgname.i386 > ..and "pkgname" provide is added to the renamed variants. It's pretty much > like how Allow-Duplicated works. To make user experience a bit nicer > you'll probably want a little help from Lua, attached as well. That's nice. Where's the catch? Only that package names are presented differently? > Attached is the patch + example configuration for RHEL 3'ish system + Lua > helper script. For FC you'll need to add a pile of more stuff into > multilib.conf I think. Why not use a wildcard on this? > Oh and mind you, there *are* issues with this, if a allow-multiarch > package is obsoleted .. things can get, um, interesting ;) Oh and you > don't probably want apply this on i386 systems, I *think* it won't mess up > anything if RPM::Allow-MultiArch is empty but I haven't tested it. Thanks! --=20 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net --H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhaOGQBVS1GOamfERAkWjAJwIWI2TxVbhsEZuDpnRIS7/eVnQoQCdH8Z8 SZOGSpFhK7yDgQpwZ4+xhuI= =Xv1R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig-- --===============1446851911== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ apt-rpm mailing list [email protected] http://distro2.conectiva.com.br/mailman/listinfo/apt-rpm --===============1446851911==--