Re: amd64 and sarge
> * Raul Miller (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040729 20:10]:
> > [...]
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Can we please just finish this discussion.
If people will stop making false assertions, I'll stop offering counters
to those assertions.
> All good (and also some bad) reasons are already told. You believe
> that amd64 is not worth to be added to the archive until it's bi-arch,
> whereas the porters consider different, and tell us that it'll never
> be bi-arch, because multi-arch is the next step - and furthermore,
> both (bi- and multi-arch) is only possible after release of sarge.
I believe it's very easy to add bi-arch to the current system, and that
it would be worthwhile adding bi-arch to the current system, but I no
longer believe that bi-arch is a reason to hold up including amd64 in sid.
Bi-arch support is just too easy to add at this point for "adding bi-arch
support" to be a reason to hold back amd64.
> So, please leave it at this level.
I think leaving things the way they are would be a bad idea.