On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:25:15AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > - Multiarch is in no way essential for amd64. In fact most people > think its quite useless for that arch. The 32/64 bit issue is just a > transient problem and sufficiently (given the only complained so far > was OO and that is getting fixed now) solved by ia32-libs. There is no > reason to prefer 32bit versions if there is also a 64bit version for > amd64, which there will be. This is the first time I've heard of that package :) > In two or three month amd64 will have had ~6 month of testing by its > users. Someone said previously that that time span should be invested > into testing before making a decision. Before testing occurs people have to acknowledge the introduction of amd64 in their packages (that is, core stuff like debootstrap, etc, need to get uploaded to amd64 with such support.) Oh yeah and we need to get it into mainline sid I suppose. > And a large section of those pending bugs is adding 'amd64' in > debian/control. I think the time has come to start NMUing ... it's not like the package can be broken just by adding that. > I asked Martin Schulze on irc about adding amd64 later in a point > release and he already vetoed it. Its either sarge or sarge+1 unless > you get the decision overturned. Well, the problem is, sarge is too close and given our track record sarge+1 is too far. So perhaps it would be better to strive towards a faster sarge+1 than shoot for making an amd64 point release. Or you can go ahead and _announce_ the unofficial amd64 port to the world at large. > I, and I think all others, agree that amd64 has to be added to sid > first, then go thrugh the normal sarge/testing procedure and meet the > criteria to be a release candidate. Otherwise the choice to add amd64 > to sarge is overruled by technical concerns, simple as that. Agree. > If amd64 is found not ready when sarge will be released then so be > it. But please lets try first before just dismissing the idea. I doubt > the GR was ment to overrule real technical concerns but only to > overrule social problems. I think all the GR has done and will ever do is stir up dissent. I don't think it should occur. I think that mostly we're in agreement that amd64 should enter sid but we're just arguing about other stuff (I skimmed over a 'buildd complaint' region of the thread...) > > I must emphasize that I would personally really like to see amd64 in sid. > > I'm unsure as to whether it's healthy enough for sarge. > > I doubt it is yet up to the high standard of other stable ports but > Debian should at least try. The repository on alioth has only minor > problems (on a port scale, not per package) getting reported but > rebuilding for sid could change that. Debian won't know unlessthey try. People use Gentoo on amd64 so any announced port of Debian, stable or unstable, would be a boon to those users anyway ;) -- Joshua Kwan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature