Matthias Saou schrieb: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote : >> Le Jeu 12 avril 2007 17:07, Matthew Miller a écrit : >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:44AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >>>> I doubt that we have any statistics on people willingly using multilib, >>>> but I know I got it on my x86_64 machine and I sure as hell didn't want >>>> it for anything besides firefox. >>> +1,000,000. :) >> I'm full 64bit on my box precisely because flash was not worth the pain of >> dealing with multilib > The only computer where I have left multilib packages installed is my > main workstation, to get 32bit firefox, but in my case too it's the > only thing I wanted... that's the first issue. Well, I have firefox.i386 on my x86_64 machines, too. The only other x86-apps I use now and then is acroread (which has some i386 deps), where evince doesn't work (forms). > The second issue is yum's default behaviour of installing all available > archs for the requested package, which annoys me quite a lot. Today > alone I had to re-run yum quite a few times after wanting to install > some devel packages I needed to phpize some PHP modules... no, I don't > want the 32bit devel package! ;-) +1 -- Agreed. Is really bad for *-devel.i386 packages IMHO, as they track in lots of i386-userland packages that are hard to get rid of cleanly, because - the bug of rpm that removes some of the some files that are parts of both the i386 and the x86_64 package (docs for example iirc) - "package-cleanup --leaves all" doesn't find all of them (#235496) - something as I just forgot again I actually had a rant about it in my blog some days ago http://thorstenl.blogspot.com/2007/04/exclude-develi386.html (which received a reply from dwmw2 at http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/diary.html?start=160 ) Maybe we should move this discussion to fedora-devel? This is something for FESCo afaics, and not for the PC. > [...] Cu thl -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
