Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On 7/5/05, Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> All current linux distributions are pure64.
That might be a matter of definition. From the user's point of view,
most commercial distributions are multiarch. After all, it is
difficult to sell a "better" distribution that is not even compatible
to "common" Linux binaries. RedHat and SuSE certainly are, which is
already the biggest part of the market.
> They only differ slightly
> in the amount of 32bit libs preinstalled (what debian has as
Yes, and how well it works :-)
> Multiarch is something that goes way beyond what other
> amd64 distributions have.
Maybe, but the RedHat package management does support two different
architectures, and it does it now.
> Multiarch standardizes and greatly simplifies installing random 32bit
> packages on amd64 by making the packaging system aware of the fact. It
> does not change the ability to run 32bit apps on amd64 at all, you
> already have that.
No, for all practical purposes you do not have that. I could not get a
single third part binary to work without a chroot. And recommending a
chroot is just a different way of saying that it is not supported.