[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: x86_32 yum $basearch



On Friday 20 February 2009 12:57:38 pm Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:14:45AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 10:57 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:37:13AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 10:31 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> >> Or you could just have:
> >> >>
> >> >> x86
> >> >> x86_64
> >> >> ppc
> >> >> ppc64
> >> >> sparc
> >> >> sparc64
> >> >>
> >> >> etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> Naming repos after specific arches just seems like pain.  This is
> >> >> one area where ppc does things right.  You don't see things like:
> >> >
> >> >I wasn't naming them after specific  arches. I was saying  we can use
> >> >symlinks to solve the arch complexity  and the confusion with what
> >> >$basearch should be vs what pkgs are in the repo.
> >>
> >> Ugh.
> >
> >I understand it is not the most attractive solution - but it felt like
> >the best choice considering that it looks like we'll drop i586 entirely
> >with F12. At least this way the i586 dir will vanish for F12 and there
> >won't be any accidental upgrades.
>
> I was Ughing at my complete lack of comprehension on what you were talking
> about.  Not about your suggestion :).
>
> As for i586 going away for F12, it may or it may not.  Doing this two
> releases in a row still doesn't strike me as a great idea.  At the very
> least it will need to be revisited by the FESCo that is in place for the
> F12 cycle.
Considering we already agreed to do it i thin we should assume we are unless 
we have reason not to.  this time all we have done is make the rpms reflect 
what has been the case for awhile.  Anyone who wants to continue i586 support 
post F11 i look forward to talking to about setting up i586 as a secondary 
arch.

Dennis


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]