On Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 19:13, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 03:12:17PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:50 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:27:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 11:21 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:56:33AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:03:00PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [... Changing all specfiles by splitting out bin subpackages > > > > > > > > > > > vs simply defining a new _bindir ...] > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but it does involve much more work to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Packaging is hard. Let's go shopping. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the above is not hard to do, it is a straightforward thing to do > > > > > > > that will occupy a full or more than one release cycle(s). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer to get F8 with some new features as well and not only a mass > > > > > > > review again. Which wil involve thre times as many packages as the FC > > > > > > > merge review which we didn't manage to finish. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, this one should be quite easy to automate. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've spent too long trying to take short-cuts and do the easiest thing > > > > > > in the _short_ term for multilib -- and it shows. It's time to start > > > > > > doing it properly, IMHBCO. > > > > > > > > > > Exactly and the proper thing for multilib is: Let it die, multiarch rulez! > > > > > > > > Apparently you haven't understood what multilibs are. > > > > > > Obviously your personal definition of multilib includes > > > cross-compiling for x86_64 on i386. > > Yes, because THIS is multilib'ing. > > > > > But we call multilib something else here, please adjust. > > > > The concept of multilibs as being defined by GCC exists for than a > > decade (More precisely: <= 1995). > > > > What you are naming multilibs is mixing architectures at run-time. > > The correct term for this would be multi-arch'ing or bi-arch'ing as far > > as the ix86 family is concerned. > > > > Multilibs can be applied to implement multi-arch'ing, but actually > > multi-arching isn't tied to multilibs at all. > > OK, so we agree, we have a different definition of multilib than you > do. since all on this list use multilib in the "mixing arch" version > of the definition, please adjust, otherwise you only confuse us. :) Please don't speak for everybody unless you've asked each and everyone of us. I have the same definition as Ralf, for example. Regards, R. -- Fedora Extras contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- 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
