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

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question



On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:13:47PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 
> >There are not going to be any symlinks at all.  There is no need
> 
> So, the posted documents are not correct on this (basic, major) point?

   They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most
likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but
take a look at [1], and possibly some of the other (Google cached)
files in [2].

> And why not have them? Obviously there is a need - to ease migration...
> 
> If I may venture a little further, the idea that all of this must be done 
> in one giant atomic effort is apparently very popular... why?

   Because you can't demonstrate that your modified packages are
actually going to work properly (and in fact, they won't, if you make
only the modifications you propose) without having a working
multiarch-aware packaging system to test them with.

   Hugo.

[1] http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:eZ4_5t0ZWeoJ:raw.no/debian/amd64-multiarch-2+site:raw.no+multiarch&hl=en&client=firefox
[2] http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Araw.no+multiarch&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
    --- There's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to ---    
               talk to us about this new script for Hamlet               
                           they've worked out!                           

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: