Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > No, if you do it right, then you can install the libraries with a > > configuration variable, so that the packages only have to be changed > > once, to use the variable, and when you change the directory, you can > > do it in the right place. > > Eh, you still have to go back through and change them all, and that's > rather annoying, to say the least.
No, the point is that the library installs wherever the "install libraries" configuration variable is set, and if you change the variable, the library package doesn't have to be changed at all. It has to be reinstalled, and you can just do that automatically when the variable gets changed. > It will be beneficial to have the solution 'proved' to some extent > before the LSB folks will want to commit to it.. We havn't really > proven it yet (though there's nothing that's come up so far as a show > stopper yet, and we don't expect any...). It's my understanding that > there has been talk with LSB and w/ RH and that they're open and > interested in the idea. By "prove" you mean "test", of course, and I'm all for that. We test things in sid, and if you want to put this in sid, I have no objection. > Directory names and whatnot I would expect to be settled before we go > through and change the entire archive for it... So would I. So don't start now. > If you expect a multi-arch spec, in any case, the issue of moving to > the non-multiarch one and then to the multiarch one will exist. > Regardless, really, the GR is about getting into sarge, and neither > the non-multiarch /lib64 stuff nor the multiarch work would be ready > any time soon for inclusion in sarge. Then it isn't ready for sarge. The more you patiently explain that a good-looking solution isn't ready, the more convinced I become that this belongs in sid, but not in sarge. > I guess I have some foolish hope that maybe this is the only issue, and > that we can settle it reasonably quickly. No, what is becoming clear to me (though I might be incorrect) is that in general this isn't ready, mostly because it didn't live in sid, and because suddenly at a late date people pop up and say "hey, we should put this in sarge". The way to get it into stable is to get it into sid and testing. To convince me to support a GR, you have to do more than just convince me it's the right decision. You have to convince me that the release manager and technical committee are unable or unwilling to come up with any workable solution. It is *your* agenda to get amd64 into sarge, not mine. *My* agenda is to make sure stable is stable, and standard-conformant, and well-tested. If you want exceptions to two or three of those three conditions, you have a very high hurdle if you want me to think that the tech-ctte and RM should be overruled. > Alright, if LSB compliance wasn't such a hurdle then why wasn't it done > already? You can't tell me "it's a hurdle" and "it's not a hurdle" at the same time. I don't much mind a pure64 system; it should be really easy to conform to the LSB in this regard: "ln -s /lib64 /lib", and then presto-magico, everything gets installed in lib64. If that is really the only thing, then just do it. Of course, it only works on a pure64 system, but it does work, and works just fine, and conforms to the standard. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
