On 01/06/2017 08:07 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> >>> Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach: >>> >>> * Switch to using the Debian style of multi-arch layout, which instead of >>> /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 uses /usr/lib/$ARCH-linux-gnu. Benefits to this would >>> include the emergence of a de-facto standard for system layout between the major >>> distributions. >>> >>> * Ship only one arch in the repositories and allow users to trivially enable the >>> repositories for other arches through DNF if they have need. >>> >>> >>> >>> * Keep things as they are, which means things keep to "just work" (tm) >> >> As Bill pointed out, things "just work" for users right now and that's something >> we'd like to avoid breaking. However, that does *not* mean that it is trivial to >> do on the build side. > > That may be, but shifting the complexity to the user is simply not an > option that we should seriously consider. You keep saying that, without describing what complexity you think is going to hit the user. I mean, if we shifted to the two-repo approach and shipped the multi-arch repo as on-by-default, would the user experience change in any visible way?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
