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

Re: Debconf11 multiarch-related-items meeting notes



On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:17:22AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> likely partial arches: i686, ppc64, sparc64, s390x, mips64, arm/x86
> optimisations? ABI-comptible optimisations are not the same as
> ABI-incompatible. But could be treated the same way.

FWIW I disagree with s390x being a candidate for a partial arch.
Everybody else moved away from s390 already and the machines
have enough RAM not to be constrained by 31bit'ness.

I'm also not sure if we want to complicate things that much by
forcing amd64 users to add i386 just for grub-pc.  That seems silly.

> Can we drop 32 and 64-bit 'foreign' kernels now? (i.e -amd64 kernel from i386)
> Kernel team would like to do it now, but may well have to wait one
> release. (ask kernel team for input)

That's also an interesting CD question then, depending where the
kernel is now.  That would require putting other arch packages onto
the disc.

> Do we want to get rid of anything depending on gcc-multilib?
> Doko wants to keep mulitilib capability.

Yeah.  Sounds sane.

> Is a port that uses cross-built packages acceptable?
> 
> Officially this is not allowed. But there are already some sort-of
> exceptions. It's already possible to uploade cross-built by porter
> NMU, or for devs to upload cross-biult packages. But it wil get a
> lot easier. Many packages are already multi-lib built. That's not so
> different from cross-built in many ways.
> 
> You can't run tests (in general). Cross-builds are not trusted to be
> 'right', but multi-lib builds are.

You can run tests of multilib crossbuilds, I'd consider them different
from crossbuilt because of that.  Of course OTOH you could argue
with binfmt support and transparent qemu, together with crossbuilding
to have the same effect.

> qemu depends on sparc, i386, mips firmware. This gives you a
> dependency on 4 other arches. Don't want to add powerpc to apt
> sources just to install qemu. So should keep them 'all'.

Yep, changing that seems insane.

> Installation media - depends on partial arches
> Do we have a disc containing multiple arches?
> Dong dong dong dong dong dong (Big bell in chruch saying we've been at this for an hour)
> Out of time (some people need to go). So let the installer people
> decide.

So the question from above was raised but the feasibility not
answered.  It still stands. :)

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: