"Shaun Jackman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/28/06, Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm personally leaning towards to two arch: all packages (one 32-bit,
>> one 64-bit) and a meta-package which depends on the right one. I am
>> considering and open to the one arch: any package though. If it
>> affects the decision, the binary package is roughly 1.2 MB.
>
> I take it back. I implemented the arch: all method, and it wasn't that
> tricky, but the arch: any method is definitely technically simpler.
> Without a good reason, I can't see why I shouldn't use the simpler
> method. The argument for the arch: any case is obvious -- it's simpler
> -- what's the best argument for the arch: all case?
>
> Cheers,
> Shaun
- ~6 times less mirror space/bandwith usage
- saves buildd time.
- simpler to allow installing 32bit and 64bit on bi-/tri-arch systems
like i386, amd64, mips, mipsel, sparc, s390.
Altough I only see a real demand for it on amd64 where people want a
32bit java for their browser plugin.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
