Re: multiarch status update
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 00:01 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Olaf van der Spek" <olafvdspek@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 5/15/06, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> >> Bill Allombert <ballombe@master.debian.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
Is "non-disruptive" that vital? What about "minimally disruptive",
or "a little disruptive"?
As a user, I'd put up with some one-time disruption if that means
that I could have 64-bit coolness (after all, I'm a home user) while
keeping 32-bit goodness like OOo2 & w32codecs.
> 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
> is none.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing
between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Reply to: