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

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

lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) writes:

> 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

Find one that doesn't involve realy dirty hacks.


Reply to: