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

Re: Concerns about AMD64 port

* 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

> 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: