On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 17:07 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So I guess I'm suggest to just install 64-bit packages and
don't bother
> pulling in any 32-bit packages until they're needed. What's wrong with
> that?
Other than it is completely differnet from what we do for a regular install...
I really don't know.
So perhaps we should just do it for Test3 (if we do an x86_64 live cd)
and wait for people to file bugs / complain. Unless someone comes up
with real examples on why it's useful to include both 32- and 64-bit
packages I only see this as a waste of space and I'd hate to waste space
because "that's what we do for regular installs" :-)
(Btw, why do we include 32-bit packages nowadays for regular installs in
the first place? I never was able to figure that out, except for the
fact that OO.o was 32-bit only. As that is no longer the case perhaps
that decision needs to be revisited too.)
I'd like to see some actual attempts at these other arches to see
what the
size differences are before we go too far off into the weeds of trying to
define a different package set for each arch.
Sure, that's sensible. We need data.
David