Yannick <yannick.roeh...@free.fr> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> And hey, the "good" reason was "diverting the package management tools
>> is unacceptable". But, no, we have to do insults instead of arguing.
>
> Alas, despite the diversion of the package management tools, I find ia32-
> apt-get pretty useful.
>
> For instance, I wanted to test Firefox 3.5 in 32bits on my amd64 Debian
> (64bit Firefox 3.5 does not have the new tracemonkey javascript engine).
> With ia32-apt-get, I could install the 32bit version of my GTK theme engine
> so that Firefox can look good.
>
> Is there a design problem in converting 32bits libraries to ia32-* packages
> or the sole problem is the diversion of apt-get and co?
There where 3 minor bug reports about an ia32-* package not working
right. Out of an estimate of 160-200 packages people use. I think that
is pretty good. All 3 bugs where fix in a subsequent upload and
currently there are no reported missconversions. On the other hand ~45
bugs about missconversion or missing packages in the old ia32-libs
where closed (and will have to be reopened now). So I don't believe
there is a design problem there. That part works just fine.
But the diversions had people totaly in outrage. So much so that I
believe they didn't even look past that at all.
> If there's no design flaw, wouldn't ia32-archive be the correct path? I mean
> a system to install converted packages which is set apart the package
> management system (until the actual package installation of course)?
I thought so. But people will have to live with no 32bit support or
the old ia32-libs monster when Mark uploads it again as the default.
> Yannick
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
