David Walluck wrote: > Charles A Edwards wrote: >> For myself, I would be against this approach I do not want to have to >> use 32bit apps on my system. > > This is just some philosophical thing, right? Because here, as was said, > the app is not even available on x86-64 natively.
Well, including the 32bit binary in the x86_64 would cause the rpm to require about 10-20 library rpms from the i586 repositories, that is why I don't like it too much. >> I would go for this option. >> The user could then decide and usage would by their choice. > > But Anssi wants to make it required, due to the reason I stated above. > Normally I agree with you, but in this case there is no other option > available. As Charles said, only on i586. We would have like: ati-8.88.8-8plf.i586.rpm ati-control-8.88.8-8plf.i586.rpm ati-8.88.8-8plf.x86_64.rpm The ati.i586 would always pull ati-control.i586 so that previous behaviour of users having control panel installed by default is kept. The ati.x86_64 would not pull ati-control.i586, so users need to install it themselves if they want to use it. -- Anssi Hannula _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
