On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:57:11PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Friday, 27 April 2007 at 19:34, Ed Hill wrote:
> > 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?
But honestly, that really isn't a reason for not fixing something?
> If you want to start talking about multiarching, we can do that,
> too, but the topic at hand is different.
One way to solve all multilib problems is to scratch multilib and use
multiarch, e.g. avoid the arch-overwriting mechanism we currently use,
so I wouldn't say we're off-topic in considering multi-arch.
> 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.
OK, but why? Any suggestions need to be considered based on benefits
and drawbacks. If at the end there are more benefits that drawback one
chooses that, but w/o analysing it and blocking something from the
start you may miss important opportunities.
> So let's keep the discussion to the point, shall we?
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpqAUxFZP7oL.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
