On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:43:36 +0200
Justin <jlec@g.o> wrote:
> On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
> > Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
> >> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
> >> 	The current binaries cause a great deal of pain,
> >> particularly when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had
> >> this problem with WINE and glibc because I wanted to avoid the
> >> reverse memcpy() fiasco on my systems. This situation would have
> >> been avoided entirely if the package manager supported multilib.
> > 
> > This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in
> > the work.
> 
> Tommy worked a lot on this and he asked for help to bring his
> proposal/spec/glep into shape.
> We are all aware what this is all about and know that anybody who is
> using multilib would benefit.
> Can't you simply work with him together to get it into what you expect
> it to be instead of pointing out that it isn't?

In order to do that, it would have to get to the stage where I
understood exactly what changes are needed and why. I'm not convinced
*anyone* understands that yet.

Writing PMS patches, at least to the level that we can review them, is
only difficult if you don't know what you want changed or why.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh