RE: amd64 and dpkg and so
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 18:58, marc.miller@amd.com wrote:
> Yes, it's imperfect, and it's clunky. Dependencies between
> the two supported architectures won't even exist; it will
> be like trying to maintain two machines. 64-bit ones will
> overwrite the 32-bit ones and visa-versa. At least it's a
> starting point that gets more developers porting packages,
> and since there are no dependencies across the architecture,
> it won't require waiting for biarch support to appear in dpkg
> 2.0.
>
> I've been getting calls from various groups interested in
> having AMD pay them to port Debian to AMD64. I've told each
> of them that there's nothing for us to pay for until this
> political issue is resolved, and that maybe by the time the
> politics are out of the way, I'll have money in my budget to
> hire some additional manpower. As much as I'd prefer taking
> the route we decided on months ago, we're stalled on this one
> political issue. The dpkg maintainer(s) won't change dpkg to
> allow biarch support, and we can't do much until that biarch
> support is accepted and standardized.
Is this a political problem, or an issue of the dpkg maintainer
wanting to Do What's Best For All Of Debian, which, as of now, is
getting Sarge out the door as quickly as possible?
I do think, though, that if there were a way to make a 64-bit-pure
Sarge that leaves a clear path to biarch, while minimizing the dis-
ruption to current deb-src packages, someone should try and think
of it, and the maintainers who do all this work for free (and we
thank you very much!) should please keep an open mind.
[snip]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"Knowledge should be free for all."
Harcourt Fenton Mudd, Star Trek:TOS, "I, Mudd"
Reply to: