Re: Who decides arch names?
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:54:13PM -0400, Chris Horn wrote:
> Another thing to consider is the fact that the stated goal (on the ports
> page, again) of a biarch userland for AMD64 is different than the pure 64
> setup of IA64. This in and of itself may provide sufficient reason to
> differentiate the two architectures.
The port page needs to be rewritten.
Actually, the goals of the port have changed:
1. we HAVE a pure64 port, almost ready. it runs in 64 mode but can still
execute 32bit binaries either statically linked or in a chroot. This
port is not "academical and of little use", but it is actually
availeable and it will be the only one port availeable for an extended
period of time (until multiarch matures).
2. Biarch was abandoned, mainly because every library package would have
had to be modified to support lib/lib32, not lib/lib64, the 64bit mode
being the default one on x86_64 (and not the 32bit one as on the other
biarch ports like sparc).
3. Multiarch will render biarch obsolete on all architectures. This will
indeed include modifying all library packages, but it is not limited to
two supported architectures, it supports all possible ones which can be
run or emulated on a given host.
Greetings
Frederik Schueler
--
ENOSIG
Reply to: