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

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question

On 16:57, Tue 05 Jul 05, Adam Stiles wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:44, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > All current linux distributions are pure64. They only differ slightly
> > in the amount of 32bit libs preinstalled (what debian has as
> > ia32-libs). Multiarch is something that goes way beyond what other
> > amd64 distributions have.
> >
> > 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
> Most current "64 bit" Linux distributions are not pure 64-bit but contain both 
> 32 and 64 bit libraries.  In other words, they are multi-arch.
> This does not change the fact that it is a bodge.
> I am running a pure 64 bit Debian system.  The kernel, libraries and userland 
> are all compiled as 64-bit software, and that's the way it should be.  Legacy 
> 32-bit software is *always* going to hold you back.  Whatever you want to get 
> working, just re-compile it in 64-bit mode -- it's as simple as make 
> clean, ./configure, make, su, make install.
> Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best  {every Linux machine already has a 
> compiler installed}  and harmful at worst  {Windows has wide-scale binary 
> compatibility -- and rampant malware}.  All that matters is _source_ 
> compatibility:  that the same source code will compile cleanly on a range of 
> different architectures.  Thanks to the excellent work done by the GNU 
> project in developing their compiler suite and automated configuration / 
> building tools, source compatibility is already a reality.  And processors 
> are fast enough now that there is no time saved in using precompiled 
> binaries.  
> -- 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

I agree, if source software is unable to be compiled with 64
bit support then I would suggest that the developer needs to
get with it. Just look at the hardware that is in the
channel, most 32 bit cpu's are getting phased out, yes you
can still get them but soon it will cost more, and have less
value then just getting a 64 bit cpu, motherboard. Intel,
AMD will all have 64 bit cpu's through all their channels in
a matter of months, this includes Celron, Sempron these will
be 64 bit cpu's.  By the time etch is out, I would not be
surprised that most I386 code will be the exception not the
rule, in fact I suspect that it will be somewhat like
support for I386 was, ie you will have to compile in the
special options for 32 bit code in most distro's. Too me
multi-arch was a good idea a few years ago, but do you
really want a mixed bag in say 12-24 months when everything
is 64 bit anyway? 

I also look at this as a good time for a source purge, those
developers who refuse to support, or update their code
should be left behind.  The code that is not supported, or
lacks developers likewise should be left behind, or if its
important then they should work on a port. All one has to do
is look at the orphaned code in debian, how much of this
stuff would people actually miss if it was dropped, if it is
important than the developers can support it. What this
shows me is that developers don't care one way or the other,
and if that is the case then they deserve to be left behind.

As far as apt and dpkg is concerned sure the idea of fixing
them for support sounds good, but is it necessary? I think
that the developers of these packages should consider the
marketplace in say 12-24 months see just where their
developer time should be spent. I would rather see, better
code, bug fixes, and overall stability then a fix for
something that is getting phased out.

Once again this thread is a rehash of what took place a few
years ago about pure 64. I think the same methods apply, but
with more upto date information, all one has to do is look
at what the market, and the community wants. But for the
same reason why pure 64 was done applys now. I am sure that
some people will always want a multi-arch just becasue it
looks good, also thats why some people get upset when their
favorite arch is obsolete. What we need to focus on is the
right now, and the future we need to fix the problems that
will affect us now or that are looming. We all know that
etch can not take as much time as sarge, we know that other
distro's even Debian's siblings are in good form. Maybe we
need to evaluate our development and focus on what should be
the real concerns of the project.

I am sure not eveyone will be happy, after all this is
Debian, this is open source its not like its going to stop
some people from doing what they want to anyway.


Reply to: