On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:42:03PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > You're trying to solve a different problem. The main issue is that while FC1.92 started by allowing selected libs form i386 to coexist to assist in installing i386 packages for not yet available x86_64 counterparts, it has evolved to more and more libs, even for stuff that none will really be interested to install the i386 part of, and even for developing i386 on x86_64. So the problem domain slovly changes and multilib is not adequate to serve the needs. We either need to admit that and reduce the specs to what multilib can do on paper and also fix the issues in implementation, or find a better solution that serves the changed demand. That's what this is all about, and given the bad history of multilib support in rpm, a solution that does not involve any fiddling with rpm, yum, anaconda, smart, apt, ... is preferred. > > > and we have Gentoo or Debian's pure64 solution. It's not a better solution, > > > it's a different solution. Heck, it solves a different problem! > > > > How is it different? They want to run i386 on x86_64 and have a clean > > separation. > > But we never allowed that! Except for broken packages which keep binaries > outside /bin directories. That's a major change of functionality, hence > my saying that's a different problem. OK, I understand. Still that's probably what we want at the end. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp2HX1JfD8Jw.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
