[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>
- To: List for Fedora Package Maintainers <fedora-maintainers redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:43:02 +0100
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 22:22 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> You already read (over) it. Go up exactly three levels over your own
> post and be amused.
Oh, I see. You're talking about the mtime bug and pretending it's a
problem with splitting packages. Yes, including mtime as a criterion
when deciding if files are 'identical' was a mistake from the beginning,
and should be fixed. Isn't there a bug filed for that already?
There is a coherent plan for fixing multilib in F8 -- it's not _just_ a
matter of fixing the packages which contain both binaries and
executables. Fixing the mtime bug in RPM should be part of that plan.
--
dwmw2
- References:
- Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
- Re: [F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]