Am Donnerstag, den 08.06.2006, 10:21 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, den 08.06.2006, 09:12 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker: > >> Thanks for adding nx, freenx to extras! > >> Can we add i386 packages to x86_64 repository, please? > > No, I don't think that we should do that ATM -- or are there any *good* > > reasons for it? And did somebody check if that combination even works? > 1. So that people that have a standard yum or smart setup on x86_64 can do > install easily. Otherwise, they have to add i386 repos to their setup. That is a general thing and not much special for NX. > In > core, there are quite a few i386 packages in x86_64 repos so this is > consistent with existing practice. FESCo discussed this some months back and the consensus was "only wine.i386 for now; we might have a technical solution that might make handling i386 packages in the x86-64 repo easier after FC6". But if people want to change that now and work out a interim solution -- okay, please start a discussion (or continue this one). I'm lurking. > 2. Yes, works for me. Except, it's only nx - freenx is noarch (my mistake) > > > And in any case: Just copying the i386 version over to the x86-64 repo > > because the maintainer couldn't fix it for x86-64 on it's own is the > > wrong approach IMHO because then we might have a bunch of i386 packages > > in the x86-64 soon just because maintainers were to lazy to fix their > > stuff (or find someone interested in x86-64 to fix it). > I don't know what it takes to fix this, but there are some cases where it > really is a problem to get a x86_64 version. For example, there are some > (few) packages that use i386 assembly. And they should be fixed. But yes, I know it's a problem. But a pretty small one afaics. Cu thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
