* Marc Miller <marc.miller@amd.com> [030828 12:44]: > What I think you're trying to do now is to allow 64-bit packages to > depend on 32-bit ones where a 64-bit version of the dependency isn't > really necessarily. The example of the 64-bit /bin/ls, for example. > Not really necessary, but then again, the only difference between > 32-bit /bin/ls and 64-bit /bin/ls is really a minimal increase in code > size. Rather than "why port it?" I would ask, "why not?" Make 64-bit > packages depend on 64-bit packages and leave 32-bit packages dependent > on 32-bit packages. Porting /bin/ls is not that much of a problem. I believe that builds out of the box. But we know that we will not have a 100% port of Debian to amd64 for a long time because of the 1000s of packages... so we want to be able to install some 32bit packages on top of our system. That means we _need_ all libraries to be biarch. And, that is the big part of the port. B. man! biarch glibc takes a while to build... maybe I need a faster disk... -- WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/
Attachment:
pgpTl1Bbpjtbv.pgp
Description: PGP signature