On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:16:58 +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
>
> 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.
Well put!
I would like to see Fedora adopt the {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 handling as
described by Axel. Or something very similar to it.
If it is possible (and I think it is), I'd like to have a framework
that allows *full* co-existence of 32-bit and 64-bit packages.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed@xxxxxxx | http://eh3.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
