[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: amd64 and dpkg and so

On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 07:42, Martin Jungowski wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 14:23, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter (pk@q-leap.com) wrote:
> > > Martin Jungowski writes:
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 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
> 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?

How many people use these ports?

Some, yes, but not many.  So, how many people will use "transitional
Long Mode amd64"?  Not as many as who would use biarch amd64, but
as many as who use m68k, I bet.  It will be people who need the 
large memory model *now*, and would go to SuSE/Mandrake otherwise,
and stay there.

> 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...

A note in http://www.debian.org/ports/ is sufficient.

Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA

"Vanity, my favorite sin."
Larry/John/Satan, "The Devil's Advocate"

Reply to: