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

Re: Concerns about AMD64 port

John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 12:52:03PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > > Obviously working with these other archs is required, but I don't see
> > > how it requires us to not do a native 64-bit port by itself.
> > 
> > my personal opinion is that you are welcome to do so and keep the flamewar
> > the hell out of my inbox.  i'm just here for mips64 stuff.
> I am happy to help on this, but a Debian port is not a vacuum.  FTP
> archives must be set up, and the task is frankly too large for one
> single person.
> I would like to see this apparent consensus to put off an AMD64 port
> reversed.  Actually, from what I've seen today, the consensus seems to
> be the opposite: go ahead with it now.
> The argument that "we don't know exactly what the migration will be
> like, but we know it won't work well if you already have 64-bit
> userland" is simply unconvincing.
> I have already presented two different ways, in the past few hours,
> which would let us manage the transition, in terms of packages,
> gracefully.

Actually you haven't. You just don't know the details and noone cares
to correct you.

I think the attitude is that its sid, to hell with compatibility. Get
it running and then think about an upgrade path or just rm -rf / and
reinstall the then emerging final port. Your making a new port, there
is nothing to be compatible with.

If its just a temporary solution till the multiarch is sorted out and
takes over that is fine.

> If x86-64 does catch on in a big way -- and with Intel's backing, it
> looks like it might -- what is actually happening here is that Debian
> will be unusable in any but 32-bit mode on a large number of 64-bit
> computers.  And for no reason other than our own sloth.
> I started this thread responsing to the message on the AMD64 ports page
> that says that a pure 64-bit port would be of little use.  I continue to
> maintain that this is wrong, and I have ample experience with pure
> 64-bit systems to prove it.  I am sure you could find many more on
> debian-alpha and axp-list that would agree.

That has zero weight. Noone ever claimed 64bit support for amd64 would
not be needed and thats all you can get from other 64bit archs.
> The other fact is that the position I advocate does not prevent people
> that need to run 32-bit binaries from doing so with a chroot.  Nor does
> it necessarily delay the release of a port with mixed-mode support.  In
> fact, I believe it actually hastens that release.  After all, the 64-bit
> part will still have to be done.

You will be stealing away people that would otherwise invest their
time into getting multiarch support along. If it catches on it will
considerably slow down the multiarch amd64 port. But at the moment
that is stuck at two (or three) single packages, mainly glibc since
apt/dpkg (the other package(s)) can be worked with already. There is
not much anyone can do that doesn't know glibc code already or has a
lot of time.


Reply to: