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

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

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Because there are so very few plugin using programs that need that at
> all and changing 16K packages just so maybe 20 packages don't have to
> do something special is rather pointless.
> Feel free to change mplayer to use /usr/bin/i386 and /usr/bin/amd64 or
> use mplayer.i386 and mplayer.amd64 and an alternative for mplayer. The
> change is easy to make for packages that need it and realy useless for
> everything else.
> We are not saying you shouldn't make binaries coinstallable for
> multiple archs, we are only saying we won't make this a policy. It is
> left to each package maintainer to decide if he wants to make the
> multiarch change for his binary too or not and nearly every one will
> not.

If you did allow it, you could almost have a single nfs server handle
all package installs for multiple architectures (as long as postinst and
company could run on the server arch).  Doesn't really fit into what
multiarch is for, but could be neat.

> The only binaries people wanted in 32/64 bit so far are all plugin
> using binaries where the plugins are only available in 32bit. A very
> small subset of all packages.

Perhaps, but wouldn't it be nice to have a solution that handles it for
any package without even changing the packages?

Len Sorensen

Reply to: