On 01/05/2017 11:42 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 05/01/17 16:38, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Lo! On 05.01.2017 17:03, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> [...] >>> ## Advantages >>> >>> * Simplification of build-tree creation. We wouldn't have to maintain the lists >>> and hacks that are required to make sure that multilib packages land in the >>> correct repositories. >>> [...] >> >> Just wondering: Why don't we switch to a multilib/multiarch solution >> similar to the one that Debian/Ubuntu uses? They put libs in directories >> like /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu and /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu >> (https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec ). If we'd switch to a similar >> solution a new (de facto) standard might evolve and in the end nobody >> would have to deal with hacks any more, because all major distros would >> put libs in the same directories. Iirc their model has benefits for >> cross-compilation, too. > > That's exactly what I thought was about to be proposed when I saw the subject of > the email and I got excited for about 30 seconds until I read the body ;-) > If we end up staying with a multilib approach, there's certainly a lot of merit to developing a cross-distribution standard. However, it still doesn't solve the problem that we have today, which is that we have to do a lot of hacky shuffling around of packages in order to take packages built in i686 and drop them onto the x86_64 repository. It might be different if we could build 32-bit sub-packages in the 64-bit mock environment, but the tools are *really* not equipped to handle that today (in particular because Fedora doesn't do cross-compilation; we just spin up a builder of the actual hardware it should run on.)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
