I'm new to answering and editing questions. My edit on how to install the ia32-libs in ubuntu 13.10 has been rejected. I do not know why. The reasons given were

  • This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.
  • This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost

But I do not understand why? The original answer did not provide an answer for Ubuntu 13.10 and higher, so I added those instructions.

Do I have to give those instructions as a seperate answer? It seems to me that adding a new answer for every new version of Ubuntu would be weird?

  • 2
    I'd add a separate answer, make it a community wiki, then include the information from the previous post. This is a controversial issue, though.
    – jeremy
    Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 1:33
  • I thought is was already community, because a big red "protected by community" was on top. How can I make it community? Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 10:49
  • That just means that users under 10 rep can't answer that question. A community wiki is different, but I'm not sure how much rep you need to create one.
    – jeremy
    Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 14:21
  • @Jeremy a CW seems like a good solution, why is it a controversial issue??
    – TrailRider
    Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 19:44
  • @TrailRider I've seen scattered opinions on topics like these.
    – jeremy
    Commented Dec 23, 2013 at 3:49

1 Answer 1


The important parts about the reasons are here:

defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate, changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.

You are putting words in the mouth (post) of Lekensteyn, which aren't necessarily true (have been my post I would reject it too). You should know that the ia32-libs was dropped. All packages included in the main repository uses multiarch, that's what matters. You should not include some shady method to get the package just because some package maintainers didn't fix their stuff.


  • I understand why it was wrong to do it as an edit. I will add the method, with better explanation about why it's bad, as a seperate answer. And I know that mixing the packages is a bad idea, but not talking about it an having this as one of the top answers in google is way worse. There are already a lot of topics on askubuntu that link to that site, because they do not now of a less-worse alternative. I will also say in the answer that if they can repackage the package without faulty dependencies, they should do that. Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 10:41
  • @Galgalesh if the SEO is bad, then you should edit the question title/body. If I google'd "ia32 libs ubuntu 13.10", Ask Ubuntu came first.
    – Braiam
    Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 12:56
  • The SEO is very good. The problem is that the answer itself is nonexistent (how to install it in sausy). Because of that, people click on the following search results, telling them to include the complete sausy repo. I'm merely saying that telling them the bad practice is better than not telling them. They will find way worse answers on google. It's lesser of two evils... Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 22:35
  • @Galgalesh I prefer users don't mixing packages that they don't need in systems that were not made to.
    – Braiam
    Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 22:51
  • then you agree with me that mixing 1 package is way better than mixing the complete repository. If you know a better solution, feel free to edit my answer or post your own. As long as there will be outdated packages, we will have to deal with not-so-ideal hacks to make them work. Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 22:56
  • @Galgalesh my answer is written very very long ago askubuntu.com/a/359184/169736
    – Braiam
    Commented Dec 22, 2013 at 23:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .