On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:04:47 +0000 (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > > The news item also showed how to make it a global choice, avoiding the > > need to multiple per-package directories. > > I'm not sure that's a solution to the problem at all (which is why I > didn't do it on my machines either). Apart from always wasting much more > work & resources than necessary for no good reason it doesn't answer the > question what happens as soon as I want to build a package that is > 64-bit-only - in which case you'd end up in the same situation we have > now, just mirrored.
Yes, the only question is would it be a better or worse situation. From a
pragmatic point of view it would be better, since the only inconvenience
would be in extra builds, nothing would stop working in the meantime and
you are far less likely to get blockers.
Neither solution is ideal, but the change from the old binary packages had
to be made at some point. At least we will now be spared the messages
from revdep-rebuild and perl-cleaner about binary packages that won't
change no matter how many time we reinstall them.
--
Neil Bothwick
Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed
of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse.
pgp8bVa48CzFG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
