On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > Apparently, nobody cares about fat packages. > > Not surprisingly, killing that code simplifies a few things. > Especially since the necessity of passing arch around was only due to > the possibility of fat packages...
I don't see the relation between fat package and arch.. was one of the planned usecase 'build a single package containing a pkg for each archs' ? Or rather a way to install/bundle several packages together (like a gnome metapackage ? :) Landry
