Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx) said:
> > While that would make things simpler and shorter, I doubt it's really
> > practical. Enough people use and want multilib that I don't think we can
> > just unilaterally remove it. Moreover, the multilib portion of the compose
> > isn't the primary time eater.
> >
> > I certianly don't want to go back to the whitelist case where every time
> > someone needed a new multilib package we had to update a static whitelist
> > in the update push tool. That's just silly.
>
> Why can't we just tell them to add the 32-bit repo to their configuration?
> Possibly even ship fedora-32bit and fedora-updates-32bit configs (disabled
> by default)? With the exactarch=1 setting (the current default), this
> shouldn't be a big problem. The only problem I see is that people would run
> into file conflicts if they use exactarch=0 or yum install
> someapplication.i686, but it's easy to close those as NOTABUG ("sorry,
> multilib is not supported for this package, just use the 64-bit version").
> If those reports become a big problem, isa-based Conflicts tags could be
> added.
Off the top of my head, it would break the install DVD usage case and the wine
usage case. It would also make multilib_policy as a configuration option
meaningless, as you couldn't ever set it to anything other than 'best' and
expect it to work.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
