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

Bug#365203: rootskel: Please support the ppc64 architecture

On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:09:00AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> Hello,
> On 06-May-01 19:23, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Notice that once we are going multi-arch (probably not for etch though), the
> > > 64bit architecture will be called powerpc64, and not ppc64. The ppc64 effort
> > > is a different thing, a one-man effort by Andreas Jochens mostly, who rebuilt
> > > everything in a pure-64 way, and has been sending out bug reports asking for
> > > ppc64 support since a long time now.
> > 
> > 
> > Can the efforts of ppc64 and powerpc64 be combined?
> > Where and _why_ differ ppc64 and power64???
> The ppc64 port is a separate new port with a full 64-bit userland for 
> PPC64 machines. This is comparable with the amd64/i386 situation
> where amd64 is also a separate new port with a full 64-bit userland.
> In contrast to this native 64-bit approach, Sven Luther has done a lot 
> of work to make changes to the 32-bit powerpc port which allow it to 
> install some 64-bit components in addition to the 32-bit userland.
> He has achived quite a lot: the powerpc port now has working 64-bit 
> kernels and a working biarch toolchain, i.e. 64-bit support in gcc
> and glibc.

This is indeed true, but the powerp64 multiarch setting is another thing
altogether, it will be a partial archive inside the main debian archive, with
some packages rebuilt as powerpc 64bit arch. It will be possible to install
both powerpc and powerpc64 packages on 64bit machines (not sure about 32bit
machines, probably they will be installable on there too, altough not

I have asked you repeteadly to help the inside-debian work to make the above
happen, but you seemed not interested.

> However, for my own purposes I need a full set of 64-bit libraries
> which is currently provided by the native ppc64 port only.


> I had some discussions with Sven about this which may be summarized as
> follows:
> - Sven does not like the idea to have a separate port with a 
> full native 64-bit userland at all

Err, upstream linux/powerpc64 porters (read folks working at ibm and doing
64bit powerpc support there), don't like it, no other major binary-based
distro does it either, the binaries are known to be somewhat slower, i doubt
we will be able to convince the ftp-masters of the need of a pure 64bit port,
and the RMs have also mentioned it not being a good idea.

You have not yet moved the stuff to the augsbourg box as i and Bastian
proposed you, and it is still at alioth, right ? 

> - I doubt that it will be possible to get a reasonably complete
> set of 64-bit libraries with Svens approach. Every single library
> package in the Debian archive would have to be changed to create
> two libraries (a 32-bit and a 64-bit version) instead of one.
> I think it would be much easier to get multiarch working in the
> same way as it will be done for the amd64/i386 case, i.e. the
> 64-bit library versions should be provided by a separate native
> 64-bit port.

Wrong, this is the case in the biarch solution, but we are speaking multi-arch
here. I already explained the difference to you earlier on.

> Can the two efforts be combined? I think yes, they can.
> The two approaches are not mutually exclusive - they can coexist
> with each other. Moreover, most things which are done within one
> approach are also useful for the other one.

I believe too, but we need to work together, not everyone in his own corner.


Sven Luther

Reply to: