pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Multi-lib support problem & possible fix

To: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [pcp] Multi-lib support problem & possible fix
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:46:17 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1582655005.17610093.1391417702242.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1288830274.15173866.1390972567394.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <2079478185.15183762.1390974204857.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0m61p2ix4z.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <850081097.15891604.1391033712900.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mlhxwgmsb.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1582655005.17610093.1391417702242.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: psaUaQnOCjQZO7fRfpZNSS5VtrpLuewRQLfm
Thread-topic: Multi-lib support problem & possible fix

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > ...
> Starting to sound a bit like that original plan I'd described ... I'll
> experiment with something along those lines shortly, and report back.

Just closing the loop on this - turned out the original plan worked out
(the big question mark was the dependency mixing of 32 vs 64 configs),
and pcp-libs and pcp-libs-devel multilib code was committed last night.
After much rpm2cpio diff verification and installation combo testing,
it'd appear we have now achieved multilib goodness.

> $ pminfo -f rpm.size | egrep '"coreutils|"pcp-libs-devel'
>     inst [863 or "pcp-libs-devel-3.8.13-1.x86_64"] value 1766815
>     inst [1656 or "coreutils-8.4-19.el6.x86_64"] value 12847030

BTW, I got this bit wrong in hindsight - we were discussing binutils
and not coreutils.  But oddly that is even smaller (on RHEL6):

    inst [65 or "binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.34.el6.x86_64"] value 9814650

*shrug* ... somehow its doubled in size in more recent versions
(or both 32 & 64 bit variants installed).  Doesn't really matter,
just pointing out the error of my ways there.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>