On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Ove Kaaven wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >Wow. No, definitely not. If the package can't be built on amd64, I'm not > >ok with shipping binary blobs that get unpacked this way. > > > >What are the difficulties with building 32-bit wine on amd64?
I don't know about Ove, but I certainly would prefer shipping a 32-bit build with limited functionality than shipping none at all. Should we explore that possibility again? > (Well, in addition to not wanting to deal with the maintenance issues of > explicitly not building a bunch of libwine packages on amd64 until more > 32-bit libraries suddenly appear - I don't even use amd64, so I wouldn't > track its progress. But that's my problem, of course...) Note that we could make this change t-p-u only, so that maintenance issues won't be a long-term problem. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
