On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:22 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:07:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > Where would be the point in providing and maintaining a separate Apt > > > repository (and additional meta data) if there is no such official > > > repository for Fedora Core and Fedora Extras? > > > > livna is not connected to FC nor FE :=) > > No, but facing limited resources, too. I have to reiterate: The overhead of building apt repos is close to zero. How do you think GWDG is able to maintain this amount of apt-repos (They are providing apt-repos for almost all existing 3rd party repos for SuSE). > > > And has anything changed with regard to "ExcludeArch: x86_64 ppc64" > > > and Apt's upstream maintenance? > > > > No, but ... has anything changed in RH's packaging? apt is able to > > support SuSE's packaging on 64bit platforms: > > see ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/suse/apt > > Is that one multi-lib or 64-bit-only? I don't know (I don't use SuSE nor x86_64), but as it seems to me, it's multilibbed: ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/suse/apt/SuSE/9.3-x86_64/RPMS.base/ I don't know which trick SuSE applies rpm-wise, but AFAICT, their apt-get sources are the same as FE's. Ralf
