On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:29:23AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > > But it will end up, on x86_64 with the binaries for the primary arch not > > to be in the classical paths. Wouldn't it better to have > > _bindir=/usr/bin32 for 32 bit apps? > > No, because you want to reuse the packages from i386 that will already > occupy /usr/bin. /usr/bin32 for i386 would imply that > > o either all packages in i386 are rebuilt for i386 to place their bins > there, too, and then your argument of not a classical path would > apply to all i386 system, which outweigh the x86_64 ones, or This is clearly out of question. > o You have different i386 packages for i386 and x86_64, which is also > not a good solution, because you lose the QA for the pure i386 > packages. In my opinion having preferred arch binaries not in *bin/ is also not very clean in my opinion. I personally think that I'd prefer to have the preferred arch binaries in *bin/ and therefore different builds on i386 and x86_64 for 32 bit packages. This is debatable, since it implies a change in the build infrastructure, another repo for i386 on x86_64. I think that it should be nice if there was a consensus on that multiarch idea, but I also think that we shouldn't rush to a specific solution, in the mean time we should try to have a multilib system without conflicts. > mtime doesn't create conflicts AFAIK, it is just visibly in rpm > --verify. But ideally, as you say, the packages should be fixed to > have proper timestamps, and see above for a way on how to deal with > the problem of generated documentation. You mean above in the thread? I missed it, but I'll search. -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
