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

Re: ia32-libs{-tools}, multiarch, squeeze

Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:

> ]] Stefano Zacchiroli 
> | On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > ]] Yannick 
> | > 
> | > | For instance, I wanted to test Firefox 3.5 in 32bits on my amd64
> | > | Debian (64bit Firefox 3.5 does not have the new tracemonkey javascript
> | > | engine).  With ia32-apt-get, I could install the 32bit version of my
> | > | GTK theme engine so that Firefox can look good.
> | > 
> | > You could just use a chroot.  It's not that hard.
> | 
> | Oh come on, this is really a non-argument. Here we are trying to build
> | a system that can be used by random users, not developers (like
> | probably all of the people reading this thread) with half dozen
> | entries in their schroot.conf.
> No, I don't think so.  Coming up with random maybe-somewhat-working
> solutions to cross-installing packages will only take a proper solution
> take more time to get implemented, since people will be less interested
> in fixing the problem once their pet problem goes away.

More than oh say 5 years? Sorry, but that train has long gone. Maybe
ia32-libs did that. But it already did it.

> | Not arguing about the merits of the specific implementation of
> | ia32-apt-get, the approach had the advantage that a, say, synaptic
> | user can use it. A chroot does not enjoy that good property.
> unless it broke apt completely, requiring more hand-holding than
> constructing a chroot, you mean?

Which was a bug, which for most people it didn't, which needed a one
time intervention to install and configure it, which it can't even
do anymore since it stoped diverting apt.

The ia32-apt-get design actualy is so as to remove all the
hand-holding ia32-libs needs. That is the part that is plain
unmaintainable in ia32-libs.

And yes, multiarch would be better but it is not here NOW and people
want 32bit NOW.


Reply to: