Re: amd64 and dpkg and so
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 14:23, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
The point is, how important is that 64-bit only port that might be
finished in time to be released with Sarge. How many people would
actually use a 64-bit only Debian?
Not to mention the dozens of people who would read "Debiam-AMD64", think
cool, install it and start to wonder, why their 32-bit applications
ain't running... try to explain that to them...