[arch-general] latex2rtf missing URL

2008-07-08 Thread Grigorios Bouzakis
Hi, i was about to file a bug report cause in the web interface latex2rtf is missing the URL string, but then when i browsed SVN i saw that the package included a URL address. So i decided to send this email instead. Is that a bug of the web interface? I dont remember a similar occassion in the pas

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008-07-08 Thread Douglas Soares de Andrade
James Rayner wrote: It's about the technical purity. It's this that makes us different from the other distro's. Otherwise we're just on the road to the next ubuntu. And if you really want 32 bit stuff running on x86-64, just use a 32 bit chroot and don't bother with the multilib stuff. It's not

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008-07-08 Thread James Rayner
> It's about the technical purity. It's this that makes us different from the > other distro's. Otherwise we're just on the road to the next ubuntu. And if > you really want 32 bit stuff running on x86-64, just use a 32 bit chroot and > don't bother with the multilib stuff. It's not at all about t

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008-07-08 Thread Alessio Bolognino
On Tue 2008-07-08 23:38, RedShift wrote: > Thomas Bächler wrote: > [...] >> Now, again, you gave me a list of ideological reasons not to do it, but >> where exactly is the point where this damages your "pure" system >> technically? > > It's about the technical purity. It's this that makes us dif

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008-07-08 Thread RedShift
Thomas Bächler wrote: Andreas Radke schrieb: It's more a question what Arch64 was founded for: to be the bleading edge leading _pure_ 64bit distro around. That's been its goal since the project has started. And I think we did a good job. You may have missed the early discussions when we made de

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008-07-08 Thread Loui
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:25:44PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: > 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'

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Multilib on Archlinux x86_64

2008-07-08 Thread RedShift
Thomas Bächler wrote: Andreas Radke schrieb: You must have mixed the mailing lists! Actually, no. Arch64 was founded to never have support for 32bit compatibilty. So move this into the community/AUR list. Yeah, maybe, and I am extending it. I give you a strict -1 for any 32bit compat stu