rawhide report: 20080406 changes
michal at harddata.com
Mon Apr 7 18:34:25 UTC 2008
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 02:16:46PM -0400, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > > Not a better place -- wanting flash.i386 isn't the only reason people
> > > install nspluginwrapper.x86_64
> > That is precisely why this is a better place. As you say -
> > a need for nspluginwrapper may have nothing to do with flash
> > so libflashsupport is a wrong place for making this somewhat
> > coherent.
> How so? I want to install nspluginwrapper.x86_64 only. I
> don't want anything i386 forced with it
Well, that is the rub. At least if I interpret correctly what
I was told some time ago nspluginwrapper.x86_64 only does not
make any sense. You need it with nspluginwrapper.i386 or not
at all. Can you really come up with a scenario in which
nspluginwrapper.x86_64 alone is needed? What for?
OTOH if libflashsupport.x86_64 is required by swfdec.x86_64
(that is hypothetical as I do not know if this is really the
case), or by something else, then you do not want to pull in
nspluginwrapper.i386 with it and everything else which this
entails. That would be a dependency bug.
More information about the test