Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> writes:
> > That's not an adequate error--but it should be simple to write a
> > trivial "loader" which provides a more useful error.
> > Thomas
> You get the same error as with any binary with unfullfillable
No, it's what you get when the loader can't be found (and it's a
horrible error: it should print the name of the missing loader, not
But if you want to avoid LSB complaince, then you have to pretend that
amd64 is a totally different architecture. That requires *not* giving
a normal 386 no-such-loader error, but instead something associated
with "this binary is for a different architecture than the one you are
running". When I run a 386 binary on my ppc Debian system, I get
"cannot execute binary file" which is a whole lot more useful. If I
use the file command I get something helpfully different, because it
says it's an executable for a totally different processor.
If you want to pretend that amd64 is not 386 and is a different
architecture, then you can (in my opinion), avoid the LSB issue--but
only if you do a sufficiently good job of making the "different
architecture" work the way it should.