On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:43:05AM -0200, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > > At this point smart doesn't have multilib support > > Yes, it does. Anything not working is a bug which I'll fix, once > reported and consensus on correct behavior is obtained. There are different schools on multilib behaviour. One is to have minimal installs, e.g. do not install all arch versions just because they exits, the other is to do so, as asking a package manager for package foo is ambiguous (all of them or just the native package?). Sometimes I'm setting up multilib-free systems (e.g. no overlapping packages at all), and a yum install foo (w/o adding an arch) will pull in both x86_64 and i386 packages. So it is basically more a matter of personal taste than consensus. I would suggest the following: o make an explicit removal w/o any arch mean "remove for all archs". I think that is unambigous. o make the explicit install of a package w/o mentioning any arch be dependent on configuration, so some users can have "all archs" and some "only the best arch" o make the updating/fixing algorithm be generally minimal in package installations, or perhaps depend on the above configuration setting. In general I think less is better ;) Thanks! > > (at least from reading of the code) > > You've read the code, so you know it's easy to implement almost > anything, and that there are many other interesting aspects on > the software. > > > so I'm not sure how useful that will be for a distro > > offering (soon, I hope) two multilib archs: x86_64 and ppc64. > > Tell me what kind of support you consider necessary for a > "distro offering" and I'll implement it. > > You know I've been working hard to make everything work perfectly, and > that even though it's not yet completely polished due to its incipient > life, the project is in a quite advanced state, and have many > advantages over APT-RPM and others. > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpI4xlADsPel.pgp
Description: PGP signature
