Since my point of view, the separated /bin is not so elegant, since both mozilla are actually two aplications they need to be two different files, they can share the same /bin directory, and in the last end we hope all the system work with only one mozilla.
I hope the work is to make or preserve the property of beign transparent between architectures On 4/9/05, Thomas Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After installing both a 32bit system and a 64bit system on my AMD64 > machine, I feel like a more comprehensive multiarch approach is > needed. AMD64 is a unique architecture, and it brings some problems to > the surface that have not been so pressing with other architectures. > > In general, I agree with the proposal on > http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/multiarch/, but I think it is > missing a crucial step: /bin also needs to be separated. Many > commercial package already have directories like bin/i386, bin/sparc, > bin/ppc and bin/win32, so that you can do one network installation for > all platforms. > > Why do I think this is essential? I think there are three reasons. > > The first reason is practical requirements. I like to run a 64bit > mozilla, because it is blinding fast. But since there is no flash > plugin, I have the occasional need for a 32bit mozilla. In the > multiarch proposal, there is no way to do this. Or rather there are > two: you can compile two mozilla packages, or you can install a chroot > environment (in addition to multiarch!). Both solution are so ugly and > inefficient that I would not advocate them. But as soon as you split > up /bin, the problem disappears, and mozilla-browser_i386 and > mozilla-browser_amd64 can coexist. > > Obviously, this requires dpkg to sort packages both by name and by > architecture. This is a significant change, but it also brings benefit > number two: > > The package handling becomes easier. Now, we have binaries and shared > files separated, e.g. into xemacs21-common_all and xemacs21-bin_i386. > As soon as dpkg understand architectures, both could be named > xemacs21: xemacs21_all and xemacs21_i386. > > Benefit number three is rather minor: a system installation can be > shared between several architectures. Of course, most people don't > have too many architectures yet. But with x86_64, this will change: > the standard user will have two architecture, and the power user may > have more. > > Any comments? Is there a place where multiarch is actively discussed? > Or is there even an example distribution that does something similar? > > Thomas > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Enga�arse por amor es el enga�o m�s terrible; es una p�rdida eterna para la que no hay compensaci�n ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad. Kierkegaard Jaime Ochoa Malag�n Integrated Technology Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10
