Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64

[Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com>]

Patrice Dumas (pertusus free fr) said: 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:11:00PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > >... I'd prefer bin32
> > Oh, no!...
> > 
> > /bin, /usr/bin, since the epoch...
> 
> More precisely, I mean 
> /bin, /usr/bin for the primary arch, and
> /bin32, /usr/bin32 for the secondary arch (32 bits) on x86_64.

... which makes your i386-on-x86_64 packages and your i386
packages... different.

(And says nothing about incompatibilities with UNIX tradition,
the LSB, the FHS, and even being able to sanely manipulate
things if you want 1 i386 binary and everything else x86_64.)

The right way to go about this is determine *what people need
to do*; at a minimum, what people seem to want:

- 32-bit firefox on x86_64, because they need to access content
  only available via proprietary plugins
 
- installation of third-party software that is only available for the
  secondary arch, in a way that allows it to run

- doing development for a non-primary arch without setting up
  a chroot. (mock works well for RPMS. mock for random
  'compile this' is a PITA.)

And, once you have your use cases, you solve around that.

Bill