> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:49:39 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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 > Why almost all packages containing bins? > > If we have: > - package A contains *both* libs and bins > - package B uses libs from package A > - it makes some sense to have 32-bit and 64-bit versions of package B > installed in different situations > *then* it makes some sense (to me) to rewrite package A's spec to split > out the lib part. > > But I'm hardly convinced that represents "almost all specfiles". You're mixing things, what you describe is the first item, while the second is David's suggestion of splitting out all bin parts to separate *-bin sub-subpackages and have them conflict. I'm not fond about this model, either, and I prefer the first one as well (minimal runtime support for selected packages), but for completeness and fairness sake, it needs to be on the list. > > 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 -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpqfRqqwSJUx.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
