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

Re: amd64 and dpkg and so

On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 08:10, Ian Norton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 07:42:31PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 18:58, marc.miller@amd.com wrote: 
> > 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?
> The debian major release cycle isnt exactly fast as it is, i agree its
> generally best of debian as a whole to get sarge for x86 out the door and into
> the next phase, possibly once this has happened wont the dpkg maintainers be
> more likly to consider the biarch option, in which case, our work with
> considering this will be more valuble to them than ignoring it,

But it's *not* just "sarge for x86 out the door".  Part of what's
holding sarge back is compiler and library (libc6, I think) issues
regarding some of the fringe ports.  PA-RISC springs to mind.

I've heard rumors of an estimated *December* release for Sarge.
That's *FOUR* months.

> > 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.
> i am slightly confused about the dependancies issues, from what i can imagine,
> some 64bit apps can depend on other 64bit ones, and some can depend on a mix of
> 32bit and 64bit, and in some cases 32bit apps can depend on a 32bit or a 
> 64bit version yes? so, some apps dont need to know, some apps explicitly need 
> to know about 64/32bit etc, 

Others would answer that definitively , but I can't believe it,
because of differences in pointer lengths.

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

"Fair is where you take your cows to be judged."

Reply to: