On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote: > 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' ?
Read the removed code. This is most of it.
