Re: amd64 and sarge
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 02:13:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > > This is just blatently false. There certainly is gain in making every
>> > > package supported on both architectures. It gives our users *options*.
>> > > For the amd64 side, it allows programs (*all* of them) to use more than
>> > > 2G of memory if they have a need to, it makes *most* of them run faster
>> > > and more effeciently. We need the i386 stuff anyway since there are
>> > > i386-only systems out there today. Perhaps some day we will be able to
>> > > remove i386, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
>> >
>> > You're talking about optimization. If you're really concerned about
>> > optimization, you'd be talking about building and installing packages
>> > from source. That offers far more in the way of choices and tailoring.
>>
>> Uh, being able to access > 2G of memory isn't what I'd consider an
>> 'optimization'.
>
> So?
>
> You were talking about the advantage of installing i386 packages on an
> amd64 system. Those i386 packages won't be able to access > 2G memory.
But each package can use 2G as long as you have enough ram. On i386
you would be limited to 1GB or 4GB.
Also filesystem cache can use way more ram.
> You seemed to have raised the issue of how biarch was half assed because
> people might want to install i386 packages on an amd64 system even though
> amd64 packages were available. Maybe I misunderstood you?
Several people already have voiced their wish to install a flash
plugin for mozilla. That would mean installing a 32bit i386 mozilla
even though we have a 64bit amd64 mozilla.
The need for choice is there. Your proposal would require mozilla for
amd64 to be renamed mozilla-amd64. And all plugins need to be changed
to have the right Build-Depends too. and so on for every other package
that needs the choice.
>> > > The current pure64 port has gone far beyond the half-ass biarch you're
>> > > referring to. Unfortunately, you can't manage to see that.
>> >
>> > False.
>> >
>> > First, in a very literal sense, the pure64 port is incorporated in the
>> > biarch I'm referring to.
>>
>> From what I saw, maybe a few bits and pieces of it here and there.
>
> It's based on pure64 with simple changes to only a very small number of
> packages (gcc toolchain, dpkg tools, and maybe a handful of others).
Not possible for sarge and not feasable for sarge+1 (since multiarch
will replace it the moment sarge is released anyway).
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: