On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 13:59 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 13:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > >> seth vidal wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 12:33 -0400, Warren Togami wrote: > >>> > >>>> This avoids the lose of: > >>>> - expecting the user to manually install a complicated set of > >>>> arch-specific packages because they can't use yum groupinstall > >>> > >>> I think you're overestimating how many folks think this is a big deal. > >>> > >> Chinese users? > >> Indian users? > >> > >> Is this really an overestimation? > > > > but it's not ALL chinese or indian users. > > > > it's a subset who happen to need i386 pkgs and who happen to have an > > x86_64 box. > > > > And then above that it's the subset of users who cannot figure out how > > to cut and paste the command they need from a faq. > > > > -sv > > This is "making stuff just work" vs. "eliminate all i386". > > We are a making a serious mistake here catering to the MINORITY of users > who want the latter. Warren, Please cut the drama. You make it sound like we just decided to ignore the icebergs. I really don't see it as that big of a deal. We currently have no way of magically distinguishing pkgs where we do want the i386 and pkgs where we don't. As Bill said - the whitelist is just pain to maintain. So, if we want something like this then we make it a tag at the rpm level. Heck, you can have it be a rather innocuous provides that we could hack into yum to look for: Provides: look-for-i386-too -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
