Re: multiarch status update
"Olaf van der Spek" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 5/15/06, Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Bill Allombert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:19:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> >> I so far haven't seen any compelling arguments for multiarchifying the
>> >> whole archive including all of */bin.
>> > Personnally I would favor a new files hierachy that allow every
>> > arch-dependend files to be co-installable. Even if we are not able to
>> > take full advantage of it at once, it seems saner and more forward-looking
>> > than only allowing libraries to be co-installable. This might also make
>> > easier to have this new scheme adopted by other OS.
>> > Cheers,
>> But would make it totaly incompatible with existing systems.
> Why do you think there's no compatible solution?
Because basicaly all sources assume binaries go to <prefix>/bin. You
want to break that. Also a lot of scripts expect binaries to be where
they are and anything setting PATH too.
We have thought hard about this over the last 2 years and nobody has
come up with a non disruptive way to change binary location that is
both upwards and downwards compatible. That certainly isn't a proof
but untill someone comes up with a solution I will keep asuming there