Re: AMD64 and lib64
Alex Perry <alex.perry@qm.com> writes:
> There is a lot of discussion on this list about /lib on the one hand
> and /lib64 on the other hand. However, the gripping hand is nicely
> summarized by Kevin's response. For reasons outside the control of
"[THE GRIPPING HAND] was worth waiting eighteen years for!" - Tom
Clancy
(just started rereading the book yesterday :)
> the AMD64 porting team, it is fairly clear there will _not_ be a
> biarch port for general use (i.e. in stable) before 2009.
We are trying to make it happen for 2007 (sarge+1) but that depends if
we get all tool changes into sarge or if we overlook something.
> As I see it, Martin (as DPL) has to choose among the following options:
> 1. Insist that the dpkg maintainers integrate biarch support into
> mainstream i386 _now_,
> 2. Bless the current pure 64 bit port as being the definitive Debian
> release (prior to multiarch),
> 3. Formally state that Debian has no roadmap for offering a 64 bit
> x86 release in this decade.
4. Accept amd64 in sid but not include it in the sarge release.
As unstable I don't see compatibility with anything or anyone a
requirement. It certainly is a goal before it can be released but
nothing that stops us from getting there. Pure64 is compatible enough
already to be useable (it is hopefully amd64 LSB compatible while not
being strictly compliant). Further compatibility is prevented by sarge
being in the way and in anticipation of multiarch.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: