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