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

Re: multiarch status update

Le Dim 14 Mai 2006 21:11, Olaf van der Spek a écrit :
> > - Why would you want to have both types installed simultaneously
> > anyway?
> >
> > For libraries the answer is simple, but multiarch applications
> > simply don't seem useful to me. The solution would be to either
> > forbid having
> Consider for example 32-bit and 64-bit Firefox with some extensions
> only available for 32-bit and others only for 64-bit.

this is a dream. This also need that the application is able to deal 
with the fact that it has configuration for the 32 and 64 bits version 
coexisting cleanly.

given the crap that is firefox configuration, you won't be able to have 
different lists of plugins for the 32 and 64 bits versions at the same 

It's also true for most of the applications that one may like to have in 
32 and 64 bits versions at the same time, most of the time, those 
application cannot have two installed versions without lots of 

Moreover, having 32 + 64 bits versions of the programs is terrible in 
term of user experience. I don't see much gain in having it, and I see 
a lot of reasons that makes it really awful to deal with:
 * think of the horror in the X menus, we will have to differenciate 32
   and 64 bits versions,
 * if your $PATH is 20 items long, then your brain explodes when you try
   to understand why $foo in 32 bits execs $bar in 64 bits when you'd
   prefer it to run the 32 bits version,
 * ...

I honnestly think that coexisting of 32/64 bits versions is a per 
package problem, and can be solved with alternatives (e.g. for perl, 
python, $foo-script-language), with some packages using the 
legacy /usr/bin/$interpret when they don't care about the arch, 
or /usr/bin/$interpret.$arch when they need the specific one.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpj6Ke9LeVUK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: