1 |
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:43:36 +0200 |
2 |
Justin <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On 20.06.2012 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 |
5 |
> > Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> >> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support |
7 |
> >> The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, |
8 |
> >> particularly when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had |
9 |
> >> this problem with WINE and glibc because I wanted to avoid the |
10 |
> >> reverse memcpy() fiasco on my systems. This situation would have |
11 |
> >> been avoided entirely if the package manager supported multilib. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in |
14 |
> > the work. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Tommy worked a lot on this and he asked for help to bring his |
17 |
> proposal/spec/glep into shape. |
18 |
> We are all aware what this is all about and know that anybody who is |
19 |
> using multilib would benefit. |
20 |
> Can't you simply work with him together to get it into what you expect |
21 |
> it to be instead of pointing out that it isn't? |
22 |
|
23 |
In order to do that, it would have to get to the stage where I |
24 |
understood exactly what changes are needed and why. I'm not convinced |
25 |
*anyone* understands that yet. |
26 |
|
27 |
Writing PMS patches, at least to the level that we can review them, is |
28 |
only difficult if you don't know what you want changed or why. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |