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==--