On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:58:41PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michael E Brown (Michael_E_Brown@xxxxxxxx) said:
> > The biggest issue I see with any bin64 issue is that you have a *huge*
> > installed base of legacy software (and legacy software developers) who
> > just assume that you can set a clean PATH to /usr/bin:/bin, and possibly
> > /usr/sbin:/sbin. Lots of security-conscious software will do things like
> > reset the PATH.
> >
> > Now all of a sudden, that no longer works. You have to either trust that
> > PATH isnt set maliciously, or you have to know the arch you are on and
> > that arch's specific peculariarities: prefer bin32 or bin64? etc.
> >
> > This sounds like a lot of pain and agony for lots of people and
> > third-party software.
>
> Moreover, you move which binary you want to prefer from a packaging
> and installer issue to a global path ordering issue and the creation
> of wrappers.
>
> It's just dumb.
No, it's just great and KISS.
All the pain in multilib is there because it was designed to be
managed by the package manager and not really works w/o it.
Do you consider the multilib mess in rpm, both design wise
(remove/install hole punching) and the 1001 multilib bugs from
doubling most configs with rpmnew siblings to killing %doc and %lang
to silently mute all conflicts to be non-dumb?
As alternatives you have
o Reduce the use cases of multilib (e.g. like at < FC5 time, only
support selected cases of runtime, only pollute the repo with pure
lib legacy arch packages, or at least try to)
=> nice and clean minimal solution, but since it was abandoned, it
seems like someone thought people need more
o Rewrite almost all specfiles to sub-subpackage *-bin and manage the
conflicting bin suppackages
=> Overly compley with lots of implications, see my mail to David
o Rewrite multilib support in rpm, and while there rewrite rpm, still
you'll always have the punched holes syndrome.
=> Waiting for Godot
o bin64
=> FHS persuasion powers, fix cron
o Live with the current situation
=> pain
Personally I prefer the first one, but from the rest bin64 is the least
dumb one.
Or make another suggestion.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpjTIfxOBV2V.pgp
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
