Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Thomas Steffen wrote:
As programmer I have to say that it should be, if you apply the due
care. However, it will never really work unless you actually test and
debug it. BTW, gcc/gdb does not properly support 64bit on SPARC, just
as a side note on "magically portable".
Magically" may even have been a stronger word than I needed to make the
point. "Easily" works just as well.
Software that does not compile on 32bit is conceptually broken, and it
I think you meant 64 bit?
Therefore commercial closed software has a completely different
compromise for binary compatibility than open source software. Open
source software trades binary compatibility for conceptual clarity and
easier development. So not requiring binary compatibility can buy us
advantages, but it is not in itself a good thing.
A very nuanced, interesting point. But...
It took a startlingly small amount of effort in the kernel. So, the
userspace... If we were starting from a blank slate, we can have the rest
with a tiny change in our naming scheme, a bit of package metadata, and
some trivial code enhancements. If the sticking point is that it will take
some effort to enhance our _existing_ packages/package system, hey, we
have this excellent migration plan that doesn't commit us to anything, and
allows us to work on the new system while the old one works fine...