nx, freenx on x86_64

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Donnerstag, den 08.06.2006, 10:21 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> > Am Donnerstag, den 08.06.2006, 09:12 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
> >> Thanks for adding nx, freenx to extras!
> >> Can we add i386 packages to x86_64 repository, please?
> > No, I don't think that we should do that ATM -- or are there any *good*
> > reasons for it? And did somebody check if that combination even works?
> 1. So that people that have a standard yum or smart setup on x86_64 can do
> install easily.  Otherwise, they have to add i386 repos to their setup.

That is a general thing and not much special for NX.

> In
> core, there are quite a few i386 packages in x86_64 repos so this is
> consistent with existing practice.

FESCo discussed this some months back and the consensus was "only
wine.i386 for now; we might have a technical solution that might make
handling i386 packages in the x86-64 repo easier after FC6". 

But if people want to change that now and work out a interim solution --
okay, please start a discussion (or continue this one). I'm lurking. 

> 2. Yes, works for me.  Except, it's only nx - freenx is noarch (my mistake)
> 
> > And in any case: Just copying the i386 version over to the x86-64 repo
> > because the maintainer couldn't fix it for x86-64 on it's own is the
> > wrong approach IMHO because then we might have a bunch of i386 packages
> > in the x86-64 soon just because maintainers were to lazy to fix their
> > stuff (or find someone interested in x86-64 to fix it).
> I don't know what it takes to fix this, but there are some cases where it
> really is a problem to get a x86_64 version.  For example, there are some
> (few) packages that use i386 assembly.

And they should be fixed. But yes, I know it's a problem. But a pretty
small one afaics.

Cu
thl
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>