[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Handeling of lib64 directories in packages.

Hash: SHA1

Le Friday 02 April 2004 18:36, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 08:59:22AM +0200, Mickael Marchand wrote:
> > Le vendredi 02 Avril 2004 08:27, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:17:19PM -0500, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> > > > Kurt, can you list some of the packages you've seen with this problem
> > > > so that we can verify if this is the case?  This might be something
> > > > for which we could devise a lintian check.
> > >
> > > Some packages that come to mind are gcc, glibc, xfree86.
> >
> > concerning xfree86,
> > I have a patch for this already
> > see my sources...
> > my xfree install in lib/ dir, all lib64 were removed.
> Where can I find those sources?

in my repos, ftp://ftp-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/debian/debian-amd64 

> And why isn't there some patch on the bug tracking system, which
> is the first place I looked at.

because I was waiting for real decisions on how to handle amd64 stuff before 
flooding the BTS ;)

should we send patches in the BTS to ask stuff for pure-amd64 whereas we will 
send _other_ patches in a few months to handle biarch (which is officially 
the _same_ port in debian) ?

this looks problematic to me ...
I doubt we can easily send patches for biarch _and_ pure amd64 and expect pkg 
owner to accept them (especially when these patches will for sure conflict ;)

We need to be clear about what we want before filling the BTS ...

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: