RE: amd64 and dpkg and so
To clarify, I (being me, and not necessarily AMD) still love the 32/64 hybrid idea, and if "doogie" is the gatekeeper here, I'm willing to approach him myself to see if there's something AMD can do to make him more flexible on this issue. Given the pent-up demand for an AMD64 port of Debian, I (speaking as AMD for a moment) would rather see a pure 64-bit port than none at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Marc
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 6:17 PM
To: debian-x86-64@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: amd64 and dpkg and so
What do you guys think about tackling the 32/64 problem later and just get a pure 64-bit port done for now. You could always come back to the 32/64 hybrid idea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Michlmayr [mailto:tbm@cyrius.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:55 PM
To: debian-x86-64@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: amd64 and dpkg and so
* tbm <tbm@cyrius.com> [2003-08-17 22:33]:
> This is all nice, but if you want to wait for dpkg 2.0 then you
> won't see AMD64 support for sarge.
Oh, well... *shrug*
10:41 < tbm> doogie: do you think you'll have some time soon to look
at arch/opteron support for dpkg?
10:41 < doogie> tbm: it's not going to be part of dpkg 1.10, is that's
what you're asking.
10:41 < tbm> doogie: why not? is it very complex?
10:41 < doogie> it's a new feature.
10:42 < doogie> 1.10 is the old branch.
10:42 < tbm> so why don't you do 1.11 for sarge?
10:42 < doogie> because too much development has already happened, to
try and stabalize 1.11 for a stable release
10:42 < doogie> tbm: dpkg is a base package. we have until oct 15 to
finish it. that's not enough time.
10:43 < tbm> doogie: so why dont you take 1.10, add the arch stuff and
release that as 1.11
10:43 < tbm> doogie: you're aware you're making an opteron port
impossible for sarge?
10:43 < tbm> in a time where all major distros have an opteron port...
10:43 < tbm> in a time where all major distros have an opteron port...
10:44 < dondelelcaro> tbm: are we even ready for an opteron port in
sid or experimental?
10:44 < doogie> tbm: there is no opteron dir on ftp-master.
10:44 < piman> tbm: I'm sure there are, but that doesn't mean it can
be instantly done... Or even done in a month.
10:44 < doogie> tbm: and you're complaining to me about adding s
upport to dpkg?
10:45 < tbm> doogie: because there's no dpkg support. The dir on
ft-pmaster can be created quickly.
10:45 < doogie> tbm: me adding support to dpkg, it just one small
step. apt needs to support it. dak needs to support it.
10:45 < piman> Are other distributions actually shipping Opteron
ports, or are they just shipping 32 bit code?
10:45 < doogie> tbm: no, there is way too much to do, in 6 weeks
10:45 < tbm> doogie: but dpkgis the first step
10:45 < tbm> piman: 64 bit ports
10:45 < mrvn> It could _maybe_ be done in that time but never tested
good enough for even testing.
10:46 < doogie> tbm: if you want a pure 64 bit port, you can do that
now, without much of any changes(just archtable stuff)
10:46 < doogie> tbm: anything else, just shutup. it's not going to
happen for sarge. period.
10:46 < mrvn> A 32/64 bit mixed port as planed is a realy big new
feature for dpkg/apt/aptitude/dselect/....
10:46 < doogie> exactly.
10:46 < doogie> Packages.gz needs to support that.
10:46 < tbm> doogie: how difficult would it be to transform to 32/64
mix if we release a 64 only for sarge?
10:47 < doogie> tbm: how can I possibly know that?
10:47 < doogie> we have no 32/64 mix at all, so how can a transition
be planned for it?
...
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x86-64-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: