On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 22:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > BUT! You are promoting to have bin sub-sub-packages that *WILL > CONFLICT* on a file level. So the rpm manager you just had allow > _fewer_ file conflicts will stab your new packaging methods in the > back (and rightfully so). You repeat this falsehood _despite_ the fact that there would be no more file conflicts in the repository than there are right now, and the fact that I showed an example of yum coping with it just fine? > Like mybrowser.x86_64 requiring java.x86_64 and yourbrowser.i386 > requiring java.i386? Real enough? Just add your favourite browser > names in the templates. If it's in a separate process it shouldn't matter about wordsize. I believe (although I could be wrong) that konqueror uses an external 'java' process and works OK when that's of a different arch. I suspect you're thinking of the case where it's actually a library, and has to be dlopened by the the browser. In which case you're being deliberately misleading again (or just stupid), and you miss the point that it would have to be 'java-libs.i386' and 'java-libs.x86_64', and they'd install in parallel just fine. You're making less and less sense as time goes on -- you've lost what little credibility you already had, and I really can't be bothered to deal with your idiocy any more. Goodbye. *plonk* -- dwmw2 -- 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
