On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:25:44 -0500 "Aaron Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Andreas Radke schrieb: > >> I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially > >> supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've > >> spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as > >> possible. > > > > What you are saying is that by adding an extra capability (again, > > separate repository, nothing to pollute core or extra in any way), > > we destroy the clean-ness of your so clean (and yeah, it is clean) > > system. That's just irrational. > > > > The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells > > me that you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you > > give technical arguments instead of making this personal? > > > > The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to > > be easily accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it > > alone. The reason I don't want this (at least the core of it) in > > community is that I want it to be separate from the rest. > > > > Besides, unless you want to maintain the packages or use them by > > activating the repository in pacman.conf, you won't even notice > > it's there. > > I have to side with Thomas here on the fact that no technical > arguments were brought up. That irks me just a bit - that "no because > no" seems to be a valid reason. It's not. > > That said, I am very very neutral on this. Thomas' plan does not > integrate anything at all, it just puts some 32bit libs in a parallel > repo for people to use if they want to (read: users can choose). A > pristine system is all well and good, but as we can all tell from the > existence of the lib32- packages in community, it's not what everyone > wants. What Thomas is proposing is keeping the pristine system > pristine unless someone wants to install the 32bit stuff. I don't have > a problem with this rationale. > > *But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing > this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak, > skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a > handful of apps. That's why I'm neutral on this. I think the rationale > is sound, but it sounds like a lot of forward MOTION for little > forward PROGRESS. I really don't see the advantage to do this. Like Aaron said, there are just about 5-6 apps, which are not available on x86_64. The next thing is, why should we support it official? There are users out there which are happy with the lib32-* packages in community. The TUs are doing a great job on this. Why should we (we seen as dev) support those stuff? Why not bringing your stuff into community as a replacement for the lib32-* packages? In my opinion setting up an additional official repo just for multilib is too much work, which isn't needed (MY opinion). There is a big -1 from my side. Daniel
