On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 23:24 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Umm, you have it backward. When I was originally writing in the multilib > > support I asked how it should be done and was told, at the time, by > > Jeremy that it should install both of them b/c that's what users would > > want/expect. At least, that's what I vaguely recall. This has been about > > 3 years, now. > > Well, I think it was like that 3 years ago. > > Now it seems users want x86_64 only, they don't want i386-devel, > they maybe want i386 Firefox (can the Flash be used with some 32->64 > wrapper?) and a couple of other things (32-bit gcc code generation, > if the respective optional 32-bit libs are installed). > > Yes, some users need all i386 they can have (such as devel). > > I fully agree it would be great if we had _no_ i386 packages in > x86_64, and if the right way to get 32-bit packages was just pointing > yum etc. to the 32-bit repository. > > > Wrong. It's about the policy. > > Ok, then the policy should be fixed. Right - which is what Jesse is trying to get organized. A meeting, a whiteboard, a plan. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
