Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > That's why I'm skeptical about it being an adequate replacement for
>> > biarch. [The biarch is of most value at transition time.]
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 09:17:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Biarch is way worse. It needs _every_ package to change its
>> Build-Depends at the very least or amd64 needs to have another
>> binary-i386 port on top of the normal one.
>>
>> With biarch either 32bit or 64bit debs have to be renamed which
>> cascades through the Build-Depends and Depends to all packages.
>
> You don't need every package to be biarch to have a biarch
> system.
Lets take an example: libc has to change. Please count the number of
packages that Depend on libc (as in have it in the Depends line).
Ok, Depends can be fixed through shlibs, mostly. But its not that simple.
> What you've got now, and are calling "pure64" is pretty close to all
> that's needed for biarch.
Sorry to repeat myself. No it is not.
Pure64 is worlds (month/years) away from biarch with its /lib and
/lib64. And without that split all you have is along the ia32-libs
package, which we already have.
Either the current state is already enough or you need a lot of work.
> --
> Raul
MfG
Goswin
PS: yesterday ia32-libs-openoffice.org was uploaded (thanks Rene
Engelhard for providing it). 32bit OO debs will follow soon. (as an
example of something more complex uisng the 32bit support we have).
Reply to: