x864_64 up2date gone wild.

[Nathan Bryant]

Gene C. wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2004 19:08, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

[snip]

>>Still, this just feels wrong.  The x86_64 channel should include any
>>necessary i386 stuff.
> 
> 
> Don't disagree ... don't agree.  What this comes down to is that I do not know 
> what the "right" answer is.

In order for things to work properly when the i386 support is not
contained in the x86_64 channel, all the i386 packages that contain
binaries as well as libraries would have to be split in two. I don't
believe this has been done.