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

Re: Future of multiarch?

Since my point of view, the separated /bin is not so elegant, since
both mozilla are actually two aplications they need to be two
different files, they can share the same /bin directory, and in the
last end we hope all the system work with only one mozilla.

I hope the work is to make or preserve the property of beign
transparent between architectures

On 4/9/05, Thomas Steffen <steffen.list.account@gmail.com> wrote:
> After installing both a 32bit system and a 64bit system on my AMD64
> machine, I feel like a more comprehensive multiarch approach is
> needed. AMD64 is a unique architecture, and it brings some problems to
> the surface that have not been so pressing with other architectures.
> In general, I agree with the proposal on
> http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/multiarch/, but I think it is
> missing a crucial step: /bin also needs to be separated. Many
> commercial package already have directories like bin/i386, bin/sparc,
> bin/ppc and bin/win32, so that you can do one network installation for
> all platforms.
> Why do I think this is essential? I think there are three reasons.
> The first reason is practical requirements. I like to run a 64bit
> mozilla, because it is blinding fast. But since there is no flash
> plugin, I have the occasional need for a 32bit mozilla. In the
> multiarch proposal, there is no way to do this. Or rather there are
> two: you can compile two mozilla packages, or you can install a chroot
> environment (in addition to multiarch!). Both solution are so ugly and
> inefficient that I would not advocate them. But as soon as you split
> up /bin, the problem disappears, and mozilla-browser_i386 and
> mozilla-browser_amd64 can coexist.
> Obviously, this requires dpkg to sort packages both by name and by
> architecture. This is a significant change, but it also brings benefit
> number two:
> The package handling becomes easier. Now, we have binaries and shared
> files separated, e.g. into xemacs21-common_all and xemacs21-bin_i386.
> As soon as dpkg understand architectures, both could be named
> xemacs21: xemacs21_all and xemacs21_i386.
> Benefit number three is rather minor: a system installation can be
> shared between several architectures. Of course, most people don't
> have too many architectures yet. But with x86_64, this will change:
> the standard user will have two architecture, and the power user may
> have more.
> Any comments? Is there a place where multiarch is actively discussed?
> Or is there even an example distribution that does something similar?
> Thomas
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Engañarse por amor es el engaño más terrible; 
es una pérdida eterna para la que no hay compensación 
ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad. 


							Jaime Ochoa Malagón
							Integrated Technology
							Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10

Reply to: