On Tuesday 11 September 2007 03:11:38 pm you wrote: > > On Monday 10 September 2007 01:57:07 pm Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > If you *really* want to file a release-critical bug about this > >> > somewhere, file it instead against dpkg for lack of multiarch support > >> > sufficient to allow obsoleting ia32-libs ... > > > > if you *really* want to get your point across, don't forget to cc the > > submitter... > > From: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I did. Well, I TOed you and CCed the bug.
... and i was talking to bdale, the one who said it in the first place. i
even made sure i kept him in the attribution lines to keep that clear :)
> > but in any event, "lack of $feature to allow obsoleting $package" is not
> > really justification for allowing $package to remain in violation of
> > policy.
>
> I wasn't talking about full multiarch. Just being able to link.
again, was talking to bdale's response. sorry that my current mua doesn't
support group-reply which would have made things clearer...
> The other problem and reason for /emul/ia32-linux is
<snip ia64 kernel stuff>
> So at least on ia64 we can't just abandon /emul/ia32-linux. The best
> we could do is link it somewhere else. But then what would we win? And
> don't forget the trouble of changing a directory into a symlink.
you'd win removing 81MB from the the root partition in a non-standard place
and which maybe might otherwise be in use by an unsuspecting admin who
believes that his system is fhs-compliant.
believe it or not, i found out about /emul after some wierd stuff started
happening in my 32-bit chroot for playing windows based games via
wine/cedega. for some reason i had decided to call this directory... /emul.
sean
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
