On 21/01/16 10:52 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely
<jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21/01/16 10:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Ian Malone <ibmalone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Successfully build and run 20+ year old programs without having to
completely rewrite them would be one of the things I want today. In
fact it's one of the things I was doing earlier this week.
Is there a reason that would not work in mock?
A developer who wants to build a 32-bit program on x86_64 might not
be in the mock group. Their system administrator might not want to
give them access to the mock group, given that it's effectively root,
but might be happy to install foobar-devel.i686 for them.
True, but that is policy beyond the scope of Fedora, not technical
reasons for it to not be possible. Also, perhaps such users can use
local KVM guests to build on, etc. We cannot account for all such
policy decisions various sysadmins make.
But if Fedora stops shipping 32-bit -devel packages that doesn't let
the admins choose the policy, they *must* tell their users to use mock
or containers.
"gcc -m32" is simpler than using a chroot or container.
You're arguing convenience. I'm not saying that is wrong, but it is
not an answer to the question I asked really.
True, but it's an answer to "Is there a reason *a developer using
Fedora* would *choose to* not work in mock" :-)
Removing multilib -devel packages dictates a particular way of working
on developers, which I find a bit surprising.
I hope at least the glibc-devel.i686 package would remain, or I would
find it more difficult to use Fedora for my upstream GCC development
(which *does* support multilib, and will continue to do so whatever
Fedora does).
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
