On Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 19:16, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:07:43PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:13 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Which is only needed once you start allowing (in your concept) files > > > of one "color" to be overwritable by another. > > > > Allowing that was always a mistake. It needs to die. > > > > > > 'punched install/remove holes'? > > > > > > See a prvious mail, but for the sake of context: > > > > > > yum install foo.i386 > > > yum install foo.x86_64 > > > > Error. Files from foo.x86_64 conflict with files from foo.i386. > > > > > yum remove foo.x86_64 > > > > Error. foo.x86_64 is not installed. > > > > > rpm -V foo > > > > Works fine. > > God, I hate it when people trim away the important parts. Aow you > assume again your model of "review everything once again, we'll split > off all bins by F10-F11", but I'm still in this year, and want Fedora > to do something more then rereviewing all its specfiles several times > a year. ... by introducing the abomination of bin64? Over my dead body. This is wrong, breaks all kinds of things and confuses not only users, but administrators as well. If you want to do multiarching, go the gentoo/debian way and use a chroot. 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
