On Tuesday, 01 May 2007 at 06:27, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 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 We have nspluginwrapper for 64bit firefox. > - installation of third-party software that is only available for the > secondary arch, in a way that allows it to run Right. Google Earth is one example. > - 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.) Right. > And, once you have your use cases, you solve around that. Those cover all my needs. Current solution works for me (sans the already known problems). 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
