On 01/06/2017 08:45 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
Having to configure / setup / handle containers to run regular
application is added complexity compared to simply running the
applications.
I think we both agree here because it is obvious ;)
Reread this thread, please. This is the suggested non-container approach to
solve the problem.
> 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?
Not to the same extent as the container solution but yes it would.
Multilib is not about just having a repo with every single package as
32bti version.
It is mostly libraries + a few selected ones.
As others have pointed you could accidentally get mixed packages
because out of sync repositories. + Minor annoyances like additional
(duplicated)
meta data that you have to deal with (bandwidth, time to install
packages / updates).
By "others", I'll note you are referring to me :)
Yes, but those are solvable problems. I'm thinking at this point that solving
those on the server-side might be a better (and more maintainable, long-term)
strategy than the hacks we have today.