Hugo Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0400, David Wood wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote: >> >> > They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most >> >likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but >> >take a look at [1], and possibly some of the other (Google cached) >> >files in [2]. >> >> Just out of curiosity; does anyone know what was wrong with the >> way documented in: >> >> http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/multiarch/ > > It's pretty vague, since it doesn't deal with any of the problems > of actually implementing those (fairly high-level) suggestions in any > given package management system.
That why you read Toleffs proposal for multiarch for debian fo details. >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote: >> >> >>If I may venture a little further, the idea that all of this must be done >> >>in one giant atomic effort is apparently very popular... why? >> > >> > Because you can't demonstrate that your modified packages are >> >actually going to work properly (and in fact, they won't, if you make >> >only the modifications you propose) without having a working >> >multiarch-aware packaging system to test them with. >> >> Sure you can. Just test them. > > How? You can't install your two multiarch versions of libvorbis > without a hacked package manager that understands how to do it. You name packages lib32foo and lib64foo or something non conflicting. Or you use the multiarch patch for dpkg. >> It sounds like you want to maintain two sets of packages: one normal, one >> fixed for multiarch. Is that really easier than just making the links, >> updating your existing set of packages over time, and doing verification >> on a pre-release multiarch systems with increasing aggressiveness until a >> multiarch release? Over time means something in the order of 3-6 years. And multiarch as proposed does it without any link farms. > You make it sound all so simple... > > Might I suggest you present a set of patches for dpkg that allows > the installation of two different architectures of a library in a > consistent and functional manner? I'm certainly willing to talk over > the details with you towards that end. Those should still be on alioth in the biarch tree. > Yes, I'm harping on about the problems of the package manager side > of things, but only because those are the ones I've tried to work on > in the past and know the best. But someone made the proof of concept patch for dpkg already. > Hugo. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]