* Peter (pk@q-leap.com) wrote: > Martin Jungowski writes: > > [...] > > > Home users with 64-bit CPUs are going to look for an 64-bit OS, and > > that's where I can see Linux still has the upper hand. I wouldn't expect > > a 64-bit Windows for another year, which gives us a one year time frame > > to push 64-bit Linux - however in order to achieve that, the user has to > > be capable of running 32-bit applications as well. > > > > good point, very good point. And if this was a democratic decision I > would certainly vote for the mixed 64/32bit path, in which case we > would make use of one of the main features of the amd64 architecture, > isn't it? The options here aren't '64/32bit or 64bit only'. They're '64bit for release or nothing'. Let's try to realize that. I think we can all agree that we want 64/32bit support in the end, that's not the question. The question is if we're willing to do a 64bit only so we can get it release with sarge or if we should just forget about it. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpY8enVrBAZK.pgp
Description: PGP signature