On 01/06/2017 08:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach:
>>
>> * Switch to using the Debian style of multi-arch layout, which instead of
>> /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 uses /usr/lib/$ARCH-linux-gnu. Benefits to this
would
>> include the emergence of a de-facto standard for system layout between the
major
>> distributions.
>>
>> * Ship only one arch in the repositories and allow users to trivially enable
the
>> repositories for other arches through DNF if they have need.
>>
>>
>>
>> * Keep things as they are, which means things keep to "just work"
(tm)
>
> As Bill pointed out, things "just work" for users right now and that's
something
> we'd like to avoid breaking. However, that does *not* mean that it is trivial to
> do on the build side.
That may be, but shifting the complexity to the user is simply not an
option that we should seriously consider.
You keep saying that, without describing what complexity you think is going to
hit the user. I mean, if we shifted to the two-repo approach and shipped the
multi-arch repo as on-by-default, would the user experience change in any
visible way?