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

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

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:

> * Lennart Sorensen (lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > What's the reason for having both versions of a given app installed?
>> > I'm pretty sure it was decided that was a bad idea and that there wasn't
>> > any good use case for it and so we weren't going to try and support it.
>> > It just doesn't make sense.
>> I want to play with 64bit firefox so i can develop a 64bit plugin for
>> it.  I might at the same time want 32bit firefox so I can use plugins
>> that are still 32bit only.
>> That's just one reason.

Then you need a chroot or you have to alternate between having 64bit
firefox and 32bit firefox installed. Thats just like alternating
between having an developement firefox and the unstable one installed.

If you relay think this will be such a common case then move the
/usr/bin/firefox wraper script (it uses a wraper, right?) into a
common arch:all package and call linux32 firefox or linux64 firefox to
get a specific one (after adding uname checks to the wraper).

The general feeling was that this situation is uncommon enough to
burden the packagers of the few cases with solving it instead of some
realy ugly and difficult hacks in dpkg or similar.


Reply to: