Re: Bug#259302: base-files: Support for amd64. (fwd)
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
>> It would mean we have one workaround in two packages. And if we ever
>> want to change it a new X upload would be needed, which is rather
>> ugly.
>
> Do you actually see a need to change it anytime soon? If/when it does
> need to be changed (and I'm not convinced it ever really will be
> necessary) is there some reason you think urgency will be required? I
> seriously doubt it, and so it could be uploaded whenever the next upload
> of X was done, and wouldn't force a new X upload itself.
multiarch developement might want to play with it and that would mean
building their own X.
>> I opt for keeping all 3 links in one package for simplicity even if
>> the third one doesn't realy belong there.
>
> Welp, in the end, they're not your packages, or mine, so whatever
> compramise we can work out between the owners of the packages is what
> we're going to have to live with. I certainly don't see your concerns
> as that big of a deal and if this is how the package maintainers want to
> do it, then so be it.
Sure. We could only create an extra base-files-pure64 package as
suplement to base-files and then do with that as we wish.
Santiago: What is your position on this? Do you think adding the three
links in base files (or the X11 link) unacceptable?
Having the X11 lib64 link always installed would have the added
benefit of also working when people install things in
/usr/X11R6/lib64/ before installing any of the X libs. Like installing
oracle and only later remebering it has some X gui. Without the link
preinstalled dpkg would fail to convert the directory into a link.
> If you'd like to do something productive you could file a bug report
> against the appropriate X package.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
Maybe someone can asked the X maintainers on irc or on the ML if they
would mind the link.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: