* Steven L. Johnson (steve@employees.org) wrote: > I've read through the email in the archive. And while a trivial 64-bit > port for amd64 has been rejected, I don't recall seeing a similar > discussion of a trivial 32-bit port being used as a base instead of > running on top of a i386 port. > > What I'm considering is a 32 bit port to _amd64, with a gcc default of > -m32. This seems roughly synonymous (at the 50K foot level) with > changing from _i386 to _amd64 sooner rather than later for the the 32 > bit libraries and 32 biarch tool chain. Of course the 64 bit (or 32/64 > bit) packages already ported could be added. Does the ability to > generate a self hosting _amd64 port (admittedly mostly 32 bit) sooner > rather than later provide any more traction? > > Comments, flames, pointers to where this discussion has happened 100 > times before? Personally I think we should just do a trivial 64-bit port for amd64 for starters. If my amd64 systems ever actually get here I may work on that. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature