On Sat, 18 May 2013 01:36:02 +0200 Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 07:12:26PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > I can already say that it won't be binary identical to the 64+32 build, > > because even the 64-bit standalone build isn't binary identical to the > > 64-bit side of a combined build (even though they're configured the > > exact same way). I'm not sure what the differences are, though vbindiff > > confirms that (in at least one file selected at random) it's not just a > > few random bytes. > > A wild idea: what if official amd64 buildds were mandated to have i386 > enabled? That's nasty special casing, but far less nasty than multilib. Special casing which gets in the way as soon as people ask for armel on armhf etc. Multi-Arch is not just about runtime, there are very good reasons to have foreign architectures installed together with Multi-Arch (armhf on amd64) rather than just "related" architectures (i386 on amd64). Cross-architecture dependencies are going to be necessary for other packages (like sane Multi-Arch cross-compilers), not just Wine. This isn't about just 32bit vs 64bit. The solution needs to be generic for any combination of architectures. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp2rGU0FUy3h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
