El dg 11 de 05 de 2008 a les 20:50 +0200, en/na Aurelien Jarno va escriure: > The version in unstable doesn't use the multiarch paths.
The version in unstable allows multiarch compilation. > No I suggest to do a "echo path > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/path" manually. ... > There is an implicit support for those paths. There is no support for > libc6-i386 being the multiarch i386 libc6 on an amd64 system. And you'd rather obstruct someone that could use it. That's a wontfix even after adding multiarch support. Once again, that file makes no harm. Library packages may do harm (that'd have to be proved). > As long as they are not official, I don't care about the problem they > can cause. Officialising them means we have to care about them. So you could start closing many wishlist bugs to enhance packages and support different environments, couldn't you? > Instead it > should allow the installation of a package from a different architecture > than the one of the system. And that means packages from one architecture can be installed on different architectures. > If you don't know how to handle the conflict, the best is to not create > conflicts. I don't know how to handle a conflict that doesn't exist. > And again, if we officially support the ld.so configuration > we then implicitely support such package. What package would you implicitly support? I thought you didn't care about unofficial packages. > If you got a working multiarch system, then please share your patches. I'm already sharing the system. I'm contributing patches. Are you subscribed to debian-amd64? Haven't ia32-libs maintainers ever mentioned this? I repeat, I've got a working multiarch system. And it'll be that way until you show me what's wrong with it. If I can't change your mind and you don't want to prove me wrong, don't bother to reply. It's your theory versus my working packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]