On Friday, 27 April 2007 at 19:34, Ed Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:42:20 +0200 "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski" wrote:
> >
> > You're talking multiarch again. We don't want to have both 32bit
> > and 64bit binaries installed! I know diskspace is cheap, but the user
> > doesn't need two binaries for each application.
> >
> > You install either 32bit or 64bit version and use that. Why switch
> > at all?
>
>
> Sometimes folks *do* want both.
>
> And who are you to dictate that everyone else must install just one or
> just the other globally? What if, on a multi-user system, USER_A wants
> firefox.i386 and USER_B wants firefox.x86_64 ?
They can't have it both ways currently. Well, not in this example, because
firefox installs its binaries in %{_libdir}, but generally, no.
> There are no technical
> reasons why it can't be done so why try to impose some artificial (and
> IMO self-defeating) barriers?
Because that's what we've been doing for years? If you want to start
talking about multiarching, we can do that, too, but the topic at hand is
different.
Yes, there's no technical reason for not installing both 32bit and 64bit
version at the same time, but it means we'd need to go down the bin{32,64}
path and that's a major change which I'm firmly against.
So let's keep the discussion to the point, shall we?
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
