On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: > Roman Kyrylych wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 02:18, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dan McGee wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 1. Making something impossible is never good (this is mostly the >>>> "unforeseen difficulties" excuse) >>>> 2. "probably" leaves a lot of wiggle room >>>> 3. If your name is Allan McRae (or anyone else) and you run an x86_64 >>>> kernel in an i686 userspace >>>> 4. If your name is <whoever> and you run random i686 package on a >>>> mostly-x86_64 machine >>>> >>>> Probably more, and some of these are weak, but there is enough of a >>>> reason to allow it that I think it would be silly to lay down the law >>>> for people that may need to circumvent the check. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> And we all know #3 is the most important! :) >>> >>> That said, I like this idea as long as it can be disabled. I have seen >>> people accidentally stuff there systems by doing this on many occasions. >>> Although, it does fall into the category of stopping stupid people and >>> we >>> do have a -Rd option... >>> >> >> Well, I've managed to install i686 pacman-git (replacing old pacman) >> on my x86_64 system by making a mistake in repo name. :-P >> > > So, you seem a good candidate to do the actual bug report opening so this > idea does not get lost! :D
I did start some preliminary hacking last night on this idea, so it probably won't get lost, but yeah, a bug report would be a good idea. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
