On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:52:49 -0700 Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ove Kaaven wrote: > > Debian's ia32-libs package isn't an example of a whole lot. It grabs > > compiled binaries from the official Debian archive, and nowhere > > else. It isn't built on a 32-bit system. If ia32-libs had contained > > binaries that could not be built 100% automatically using Debian's > > official archive (and only the official archive), it probably > > wouldn't have gotten into Debian. Besides, ia32-libs is not meant > > to be a long-lived package, it'll go away eventually. > > > > We've been saying that for 3 years now, and we've only become MORE > dependent on ia32-libs in the process. The chief culprit, of course, > is Wine, and Wine's need to run 32 bit applications isn't going away > soon. > > Really, what Debian (and Ubuntu) need is to replace the contents of > the ia32-libs package with proper 32 versions of package (sorta like > how lib32asound and lib32z1 are now). Fixing that, however, is a bit > beyond the scope of the wine-devel list ;) The real problem with multi-arch libs is, that it's hard to maintain inside debian packages at all...not that it's difficult to compile on amd64 with -m32 , but regarding the different ways of debian/rules writing with all different maintainer ways to write Makefiles for accomplishing this tasks is the most difficult thing. When there are people interested in going a hard way of fixing todays situation in debian/ubuntu and other distris, please let's do it , sane and with a plan. Regards, \sh