* Thomas Bushnell, BSG (tb@becket.net) wrote: > Sure, and I am happy to have dpkg, the RM, the technical committee, > etc., make the decision, which is why I haven't given it thought. But > when it becomes a GR, you have the necessity to start over, since you > are now asking the developers in general to overrule those people. If > you want my support, this is what you have to give me. Eh, the GR wasn't my idea, but, what the hell, it's fun to go through things over and over again, isn't it? > > It's expected that the LSB is going to be changed. Additionally, > > compling with the LSB isn't really an option- it'd probably take a year > > or more to modify all of the packages, not to mention the Debian > > infrastructure packages. Then we'd turn around and do it again to > > support multiarch, not exactly a useful way to spend our time. > > No, if you do it right, then you can install the libraries with a > configuration variable, so that the packages only have to be changed > once, to use the variable, and when you change the directory, you can > do it in the right place. Eh, you still have to go back through and change them all, and that's rather annoying, to say the least. > Also, your expectation about that the LSB is "going to be changed" > isn't worth much, unless you can somehow promise not only that it will > be changed, but that what you want to do now *IS* what it is going to > be changed to--in absolutely every relevant particular. I don't trust It will be beneficial to have the solution 'proved' to some extent before the LSB folks will want to commit to it.. We havn't really proven it yet (though there's nothing that's come up so far as a show stopper yet, and we don't expect any...). It's my understanding that there has been talk with LSB and w/ RH and that they're open and interested in the idea. > your guesses about that. Sure, I think it will be certainly changed > to be a multi-arch spec--but if even the directory names get spelled a > little differently, then you haven't gained anything. You have to be > able to exactly predict the future change, and I don't think you can. Directory names and whatnot I would expect to be settled before we go through and change the entire archive for it... If you expect a multi-arch spec, in any case, the issue of moving to the non-multiarch one and then to the multiarch one will exist. Regardless, really, the GR is about getting into sarge, and neither the non-multiarch /lib64 stuff nor the multiarch work would be ready any time soon for inclusion in sarge. > > *Certainly* if this is the issue then please tell us and then listen to > > our arguments as to why we don't see IA32/LSB compliance as a problem. > > I don't know what you mean be "the issue". This is one issue; it's > the one that perked up my ears. I guess I have some foolish hope that maybe this is the only issue, and that we can settle it reasonably quickly. It'd certainly be nice if other people would speak up if they have other concerns so that we can address them instead of just getting things like "xyz has some questions about it..." and then not hearing anything. > Another is that all you are saying is an excellent reason to delay, > and put it in sid, but not sarge. It's *way* too late to start > talking about what goes in sarge in that way; we have no idea what > kinds of interactions there will be with it, because it hasn't been in > testing. That's why we have testing. Interactions with which? We're not talking about multiarch, we're talking about pure64 for the inclusion into sarge. I doubt it'd have much in the way of interactions w/ other things than what we've already found and taken care of through compiling the entire archive for it... > Still, conformity with the LSB is a very important thing, and I'm > really not convinced by your assertion that somehow it's a huge > hurdle. I have no confidence that you will accurately predict what > the next LSB will look like (in every detail) so whatever you do now > is equally likely not to match the future LSB as if you simply > conformed to the present LSB. Alright, if LSB compliance wasn't such a hurdle then why wasn't it done already? There were people working on it close to a year ago (I remember popping into #debian-amd64 to discover people actually there, and dutifully working on biarch/LSB-compliant stuff). About 6 months ago it had pretty much entirely died off and there wasn't much interest in it. Then pure64 came along, got fully built and up to speed very quickly. Shortly following there was much discussion about biarch and the flaws it has and then Tollef wrote up multiarch and circled it around, had meetings with dpkg developers and other folks and continued to work on it, getting input from the RM team, etc, and now we've got a number of people working on it. And this is just getting the *base* system to be either biarch or multiarch compliant, much less the rest of the archive which will also take a fair bit of work. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature