Chris Cheney wrote:
I have never said anything about adding new architectures, except for my dislike of adding things like "i686" or "k7" ports just because of a few people that think it will run significantly faster than on i386 optimized software. This time I must agree with Chris though. Debian *needs* to support amd64, not as a subarch of i386, but a port on its own.[1] Amd64 is the *first* mainstream 64-bit architecture[2]. Personally, it would be a shame if Amd64 was blocked simply by the lack of mirror space[3]. It might also reflect poorly if Microsoft supports this new arch before open source project like Debian.When is amd64 going to be allowed to go into sid? It has been more or less ready to go into sid since mid Feb and seems to be primarily blocked on the fact that it is not an official Debian port yet. If it is simply an issue of mirror space then why isn't one of the many unused archs dropped, or preferrably the rsync script modified? As can be seen by popcon almost all users use i386 currently. By the end of 2005 nearly all new desktops will be based on amd64.[1] Which very likely will be
- Adam [1] - one may argue that i386 should be a subarch of amd64[2] - yes, I know, ppc64. But ppc64 will not sell in hundred of millions of units anytime soon. [3] - if there is a lack of mirror space, I think that we should have a GR that decides *if* amd64 should replace a current port and *which* port should be replaced in the "official" distribution. Replaced port could still be supported unofficially, like The HURD is.. Any ideas? (is this is needed and/or this is a good idea)