[F8/multilib] {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 (was: Split libperl from perl)

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:00:21PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 19:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > God, I hate it when people trim away the important parts. Aow you
> > assume again your model of "review everything once again, we'll split
> > off all bins by F10-F11", but I'm still in this year, and want Fedora
> > to do something more then rereviewing all its specfiles several times
> > a year. 
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> So for the sake of sanity, I shall just pretend that when I asked for
> clarification by quoting "punched install/remove holes?" when you
> claimed they were "firmly embedded in the multilib design", your
> response was as follows:

No, that was not my response, not even close.

> -> > 'punched install/remove holes'?
> -> 
> -> No, I misspoke. Those, along with the 'rpm special handling' of which
> -> I spoke, are not firmly embedded in the multilib design; they were
> -> just another problem created by another bad short-term decision, as
> -> you said. 

multilib design (TM) is the (un)art of splitting only the libdir for
archs and performing ugly hacks to cross-overwriting techniques.

As such the punchhole remove/install problem is an embedded issue of
the multilib design (TM).

The "David Woodhouse improved multilib design that requires bin
suppackage splits for every bin carrying package" tries to circumvent
this problem by spliting out the bin contents in subpackages. But this
is another bad short-term decision, as it

o forces us to revisit every bin carrying package out there speding
  tons of resources better used elsewhere
o still does not allow us to simply have two disting repos for both
  arch, since we would have to filter out all bin subpackages
o If we don't filter then we just pass the problem to all depsolvers,
  e.g. yum, smart, apt

In comparison the bin64 solution costs us almost nothing:
o most packages will rebuild in unattended mode
o breakage of false bindir will be detected during the build itself
o You can use two cleanly distinct repos with the depsolver tools of
  today, no need to add any funny support anywhere
o You fix an FHS violation, in exchange for another, which just brings
  us bad to balance
o The FHS has already considered this (thanks to the Debain folks) and
  is waiting for distros to actually utter the demand to include it.

So for the sake of sanity, I shall just pretend that when you read
this you will answer:

> Yes, I'm convinced, I didn't realize all that, go for it.

Yeah, I know, probably not even close :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070426/573c1cc5/attachment.sig>