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

Re: amd64 and dpkg and so



* Marc Miller <marc.miller@amd.com> [030827 21:34]:
> To clarify, I (being me, and not necessarily AMD) still love the 32/64
> hybrid idea, and if "doogie" is the gatekeeper here, I'm willing to
> approach him myself to see if there's something AMD can do to make him
> more flexible on this issue.  Given the pent-up demand for an AMD64
> port of Debian, I (speaking as AMD for a moment) would rather see a
> pure 64-bit port than none at all.

I think the 64/32-biarch is something that is required, eventually.  I
would love to say that we can skip it for now and concentrate on amd64
only architecture.  But I am not sure if that would solve any of the
problems we are facing, and if we take shortcuts I believe that it will
create double the work in the future.

Basically, if you want the amd64 packages to have some merit -- ie be
portable to the 64/32-biarch -- you would want the libraries to live in
../lib64, which unfortunately means that you have to touch every
debian/rules file out there anyway.  And since we are on that route now,
we could as well make the debian/rules build both packages.

Excluding the library packages, the 64/32-biarch requires changes to
dpkg and apt.  I think that dpkg for amd64/i386 is in pretty good
shape... there are no doubt bugs, and it's not clean enough for
acceptance but it's a functional proof of concept.

B.

-- 
				WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/

Attachment: pgpDzQmVdT7pJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: