On 22 January 2016 at 13:38, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Ian Malone
<ibmalone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 09:05, Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org> wrote:
>> On 21/01/16 22:24, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>
>>> Since RHEL/CentOS 7 already does not exist in a native 32bit version I
>>> do wonder what would actually be running in a hypothetical
>>> mock/container/VM to build and run 32 bit systems down the road if
>>> multilib went away.
>>
>>
>> CentOS 7 does now have a 32-bit version:
>>
>>
http://seven.centos.org/2015/10/centos-linux-7-32-bit-x86-i386-architectu...
>>
>
> While interesting to know, that is a CentOS SIG effort. If you are
> using RHEL you presumably aren't supported for it, and I'm giving it
> as an example of the way things are going. In any case I find this
If you're using RHEL, then you'd use RHEL to build for RHEL surely.
Which means you build on RHEL however it enables you to build 32-bit
applications. Sure, you could use Fedora to build for RHEL, but I
find that baffling in either the mock or the multilib case. There's
just no sanity in expecting something built on Fedora multilib to work
on RHEL except in the simplest of cases.
Indeed. I don't build for RHEL using Fedora. However it would be
unexpected (unprecented?) for Fedora to diverge from RH on handling
multilib, and I expect changes here will show up there eventually,
hence taking an interest in this issue. Fedora I use at home and don't
often have call to build 32bit with (though this would probably be
different if I made use of Wine at all).
--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk