Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 19:46, David Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >> I guess I can only ask... what... on... earth... was the problem?
> >
> > See below...
>
> Actually, I don't see where you've said what was objectionable about
> multiarch.
>
> > Well, let's say you want to install a 32-bit xine. That's written
> > in C, so you have to have a 32-bit glibc. So, you use dpkg to install
> > the 32-bit version of glibc2. But... you can't, because you already
> > *have* a package called glibc2 installed, which is the 64-bit version.
>
> No, you misunderstand. I don't expect that to work. It's obvious that if
> you just made the directory structure switch you still have a long way to
> go before you can install two different glibc packages. I'm just saying,
> why not make the directory structure switch and then _start_ doing the
> work of adding support to the package system/packages. Then, as I said:
Until you have a coherent and generally acceptable plan for how to handle the
hard bits is there any point doing anything (other than as proof-of-concept)?
If you start migrating things before the long-term strategy has been agreed
you risk having to do another migration because you got it wrong.
Paul
Reply to: