* John Goerzen (jgoerzen@complete.org) wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:55:58AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > 1) RH/SuSe have a /lib with 32bit libraries and a /lib64 with 64bit > > libraries on their amd64 systems. > > 2) The FHS (I think?) and/or other standards groups are putting in their > > standards that the 32bit loader is to be at /lib/ld-linux.so and the > > 64bit loader at /lib64/ld-linux-amd64.so (or whatever the specific > > names are). > > 3) Debian wants to be standards compliant, of course. > > 4) Installing 64bit libraries to /lib64 is pretty difficult just to > > begin with and have everything work under Debian with the automated > > build systems and whatnot. > > Ah ha. That makes some sense at least. And yet, at the same time, how > are RH and Gentoo doing it? > > (Incidentally, what about /usr/lib?) From my understanding it will be split into /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 as well. > Heck, by modifying autoconf and debhelper to dump libs at the right > spot, we'd probably get 90% of the packages right off the bat. Yeah, but that doesn't *actually* support 32bit programs, it just puts the files into the right place. It gets much more interesting when you try to properly support i386 debs *and* amd64 debs with all of the build-depends, Depends, conflicts, etc, along with not changing how the existing autobuild is done (much) or every source package (or even every library source package) in the archive. I think it'd be next to pointless to have a 64bit-native amd64 system with the libraries in /lib64, just put them in /lib and not change how the build is done at all if it's a 64bit-native port. > > 5) RH/SuSe are (at least trying to) supporting mixed 32/64bit amd64 > > systems, doing it on Debian would be good too. > > 6) Doing a 64bit-only port *now* and a mixed 32bit/64bit port *later* > > would make for a very difficult upgrade path (personally I'm inclined > > to say forget the upgrade path, make a 64bit only port *now* so > > people have a *useful* 64bit system and do the mixed stuff and tell > > people they need to reinstall if they want to go to the mixed > > system, and make it clear up front that if they do use the 64bit only > > port that they'll have to reinstall later if they want to move to the > > 32/64bit mixed system). > > Exactly. I agree with that. Yeah, but others don't and somehow they're the ones with time to work on this stuff. > > 7) There's been claims that the RM or the ftp-master or someone wouldn't > > create the amd64 directory for a 64bit only port. No clue how > > reliable these are, people couldn't point me to specific messages in > > archives or anything, or give any better wording/reasoning than what > > I've said above. > > > > If you've got the time/resources to do a 64bit-only port and maintain it > > and can convince whomever to give you wanna-build access so that you can > > keep it up with the rest of unstable I'd say go for it. I'd even be > > One does not have to have permission to run an autobuilder; permission > is only needed if it will be part of the official build infrastructure. > As an example, I right now am running an unofficial autobuilder for the > netbsd-i386 port. I grabbed the source for wanna-build, buildd, and > sbuild, and installed it on my box. I'm putting my packages up on > people.debian.org, which has a big disk and fast connection. I thought you had to get permission (and config files changed on some system somewhere that has limited access...) to get hooked into wanna-build... If I'm wrong, then I'm glad to hear it. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature