On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 19:13 +0200, dragoran wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I've got a simple question that I'd like to table for discussion. > > Current -devel tree seems to suggest that FC6 multilib FC6 has almost > > doubled in size (from ~13% of the total package count in FC4/5 to ~24% > > in the current devel tree) > > On the other hand, FC6 is about to include native 64bit OO and gcj (with > > browser support) builds, lowering the need for the default i386 support, > > as only Wine/Extra actually -requires- multilib support to run. > > More-ever, I'd venture to guess that most x86_64 installation will most > > likely be used to run native 64bit services and application - mostly on > > servers and workstation - lowering the need for multilib even further. > > (You won't run 32bit flash on your brand new 32 cores server... let > > alone that fact that flash/win32codecs are not supported by Fedora.) > > > > My question is simple: why not add an installation option to disable > > multilib support completely. > > > > Mind you, I use my workstation to run 32bit software and games... but I > > rather disable multilib completely and create a small, specialized > > 'stupid' i386 chroot (no DE, no user-applications; only a basic set of > > i386 libraries and UI toolkits) and use it to run i386 applications in > > a confined space. (Xen/i386 might be an interesting option - though it > > won't be able to run hardware GL applications which I need... ;)) > > > > - Gilboa > > > > > > Sorry but I have to disagree here, the x86_64 arch is able to nativly > run 32bit and 64bit software, so supporting multilib is using a feature > of the hardware and there are many 32bit only apps out there and this > also wont change in the near feature. If you don't need the 32bit libs > you can simply remove all i386/i686 rpms (yum remove glibc.i686 should > do it). I'm not suggesting the multilib is not required, I am suggesting to give the option to disable it during the installation. BTW, isn't 'yum remove glibc.i686' a temporary solution? Won't yum will try to reinstall the missing package tree once I run 'yum update' and/or 'yum install foo'? - Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
