On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:27:43 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:00:37PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 19:28, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > > > Should this be included by default for x86_64 ? > > > user joe won't figure it out like this. > > > > Absolutely not. An end user's multilib capable machine + OS should install > > the multilib software by default. An end user shouldn't have to figure out > > how to add it after the fact. It should Just Work(tm) for the user. There > > should be no problem with the x86_64 and i386 packages being installed. If > > there are, like multilib file conflicts, we fix them. > > Is it true for Extras? I haven't seen anything like a push for multilib > in extras, for example there is nothing in the guidelines, nor something > reporting the conflicts. Did I miss something? We've talked about it a few weeks ago. Currently, only Wine i386 plus its dependencies are copied into the x86_64 repository. With every push of new packages, updates of packages in the dependency chain are recognised and are distributed to the multi-lib repositories automatically, too. As soon as the FC-6 branch is available, we can switch a few bits for the next "development" tree of Extras and copy all *-devel packages and their dependencies, too. Additional work will be needed as conflicts are found and as we find packages we want to add to the white-list and black-list of what shall become multi-lib capable or not. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
