Dne 11.1.2017 v 15:25 Jonathan Wakely napsal(a): > On 07/01/17 22:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:38:58PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> Lo! On 05.01.2017 17:03, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> > [...] >>> > ## Advantages >>> > >>> > * Simplification of build-tree creation. We wouldn't have to >>> maintain the lists >>> > and hacks that are required to make sure that multilib packages >>> land in the >>> > correct repositories. >>> > [...] >>> >>> Just wondering: Why don't we switch to a multilib/multiarch solution >>> similar to the one that Debian/Ubuntu uses? They put libs in >>> directories >>> like /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu and /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu >>> (https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation >>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec ). If we'd switch to a similar >>> solution a new (de facto) standard might evolve and in the end nobody >>> would have to deal with hacks any more, because all major distros would >>> put libs in the same directories. Iirc their model has benefits for >>> cross-compilation, too. >> >> IMHO this is a much better idea. Also being closer to Debian means >> less hacking required to build GCC (or at least, it's the same hacking >> as Debian needs). > > How's that? To build GCC on Debian needs an entire new configure > option that isn't needed at all on Fedora: --enable-multiarch > > There's *more* hacking needed to build GCC on Debian. So yes, if we > copy them we'll need the same hacking as Debian needs, but that's not > less hacking than we have now. >
And yet the configuration is wrong and does not support the current needs of packages on Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979403 Vít _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
