Is there any progress with this repository? Or is it possible to
publish the PKBUILDs so we can update or extend some packages?
Best regards,
André
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
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
> 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
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
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
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'
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
