Matthias Saou schrieb:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote :
> Le Jeu 12 avril 2007 17:07, Matthew Miller a écrit :
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:44AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>>> I doubt that we have any statistics on people willingly using multilib,
>>> but I know I got it on my x86_64 machine and I sure as hell didn't want
>>> it for anything besides firefox.
>> +1,000,000. :)
> I'm full 64bit on my box precisely because flash was not worth the pain of
> dealing with multilib
The only computer where I have left multilib packages installed is my
main workstation, to get 32bit firefox, but in my case too it's the
only thing I wanted... that's the first issue.
Well, I have firefox.i386 on my x86_64 machines, too. The only other
x86-apps I use now and then is acroread (which has some i386 deps),
where evince doesn't work (forms).
The second issue is yum's default behaviour of installing all
available
archs for the requested package, which annoys me quite a lot. Today
alone I had to re-run yum quite a few times after wanting to install
some devel packages I needed to phpize some PHP modules... no, I don't
want the 32bit devel package! ;-)
+1 -- Agreed. Is really bad for *-devel.i386 packages IMHO, as they
track in lots of i386-userland packages that are hard to get rid of
cleanly, because
- the bug of rpm that removes some of the some files that are parts of
both the i386 and the x86_64 package (docs for example iirc)
- "package-cleanup --leaves all" doesn't find all of them (#235496)
- something as I just forgot again
I actually had a rant about it in my blog some days ago
http://thorstenl.blogspot.com/2007/04/exclude-develi386.html
(which received a reply from dwmw2 at
http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/diary.html?start=160 )
Maybe we should move this discussion to fedora-devel? This is something
for FESCo afaics, and not for the PC.
[...]
Cu
thl