On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Andreas Radke schrieb:
I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stuff in our officially supported repos as I already told you in private discussions. I've spent several weeks if not even months to make it as clean as possible.
What you are saying is that by adding an extra capability (again, separate repository, nothing to pollute core or extra in any way), we destroy the clean-ness of your so clean (and yeah, it is clean) system. That's just irrational.
The fact that you don't quote a single line from my posting tells me that you haven't even read any of my propositions. Why don't you give technical arguments instead of making this personal?
The reason I want to maintain this on our ftp is that I want it to be easily accessible to our devs and users, as I can't maintain it alone. The reason I don't want this (at least the core of it) in community is that I want it to be separate from the rest.
Besides, unless you want to maintain the packages or use them by activating the repository in pacman.conf, you won't even notice it's there.
I have to side with Thomas here on the fact that no technical arguments were brought up. That irks me just a bit - that "no because no" seems to be a valid reason. It's not. That said, I am very very neutral on this. Thomas' plan does not integrate anything at all, it just puts some 32bit libs in a parallel repo for people to use if they want to (read: users can choose). A pristine system is all well and good, but as we can all tell from the existence of the lib32- packages in community, it's not what everyone wants. What Thomas is proposing is keeping the pristine system pristine unless someone wants to install the 32bit stuff. I don't have a problem with this rationale. *But* I think it is a bit important that we look at why we're doing this - for a handful (5 or 6) closed source apps. flash, teamspeak, skype, google-earth (and wine). It seems like a lot of work for a handful of apps. That's why I'm neutral on this. I think the rationale is sound, but it sounds like a lot of forward MOTION for little forward PROGRESS.