Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:11:00PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote: > > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > >... I'd prefer bin32 > > Oh, no!... > > > > /bin, /usr/bin, since the epoch... > > More precisely, I mean > /bin, /usr/bin for the primary arch, and > /bin32, /usr/bin32 for the secondary arch (32 bits) on x86_64. ... which makes your i386-on-x86_64 packages and your i386 packages... different. (And says nothing about incompatibilities with UNIX tradition, the LSB, the FHS, and even being able to sanely manipulate things if you want 1 i386 binary and everything else x86_64.) The right way to go about this is determine *what people need to do*; at a minimum, what people seem to want: - 32-bit firefox on x86_64, because they need to access content only available via proprietary plugins - installation of third-party software that is only available for the secondary arch, in a way that allows it to run - doing development for a non-primary arch without setting up a chroot. (mock works well for RPMS. mock for random 'compile this' is a PITA.) And, once you have your use cases, you solve around that. Bill -- 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
