Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))
mschwendt at gmail.com
Mon Mar 8 21:19:54 UTC 2010
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:29:42 -0600, Matthew wrote:
> > There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
> > relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
> > 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
> > development with i686 packages. At most they install 32-bit apps where
> > 64-bit builds aren't available or "less good".
> You forget people developing proprietary software...
Why would development of proprietary software have different requirements
with regard to multilib installations?
When I wrote "...I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
development with i686 packages", I didn't exclude developers of
proprietary software either. There may be some who do it actually, but
I don't have any numbers. I only see more users who run into problems
because of the multiarch repos.
> or even just
> multilib apps. Multilib is useful if you want to build the 32-bit
> version of something on an x86_64 box (and don't want to set up a full
> chroot / VM).
The "don't want to" is questionable. Development of the 32-bit version
would still need a full 32-bit test installation. It need not be the
x86_64 box to do full multi-booting instead of VM, but even multi-booting
would be convenient enough, considering how quickly something like Fedora
can be installed. Typical development is not trial-and-error compilation
of both 64-bit and 32-bit and alternating, but rather development on
either arch till something is ready to be built for and to be tested on a
Same for multiple target distributions.
> (Doubly so for proprietary stuff that may need to build both 32- and
> 64-bit in the same build tree.)
Again, what special requirements come with the "proprietary" part?
More information about the devel