Comment 10 for bug 437566

2009/10/17 Michał Gołębiowski <email address hidden>:
> @David E. Fox
> Ad. 1) See
> http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/karmic/partner/binary-i386/Packages
> As You see, it is *not* empty. Opposite to this one:
> http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/karmic/partner/binary-amd64/Packages

That is almost useless. I double checked the links - the first one
says it is a Karmic repository, but it is in fact a Jaunty package as
per the description, unless of course it actually is verifiable as a
valid solution, and if it is, then it mighyt be the right suggestion.
In generalities though, it is improper to suggest putting something up
saying it is for a specific version of Ubuntu where it clearly states
that it may not be. That could lead to a broken box.

I suspect I had a 64 bit reader for some time when I ran 64 bit (and I
have been 64 bit on Ubuntu since 5/2008) but my memory is a bit
fading.

Of course, should a bona fide verifiable link to "acroread" exist then
maybe it's a valid bug. But if even so, it should be filed "wishlist"
just on the general principle that the original filer of the bug is
really asking that he wishes acroread to be in Karmic, not that it is
an omission to not have it yet.

--
thanks for letting me change the magnetic patterns on your hard disk.