Le lun 12/01/2004 à 15:22, Julian Mehnle a écrit : > The reason why we did not want to create a completely separate arch for > amd64 was that every self-contained arch consumes huge quantities of space > since almost all arch-dependant binary packages have to be duplicated for > the arch. Well, that makes a new arch, right. If this is becoming too much for our mirrors, they already have the choice to drop some architectures. I don't think there is an issue if we keep only a few mirrors for e.g. m68k or mips, when we are so few to use them. And don't forget some arches are likely to be dropped for sarge if they don't have a working installer. > But in the case of amd64 (and some other archs), many packages > can be reused from legacy archs without significant performance penalties, > so only few packages (where it makes sense performance-wise) would need to > be recompiled for amd64. This is true for mips64, s390x and sparc64, but - correct me if this is wrong - amd64 code is slightly faster than pure i386 code, excepted in some corner cases. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=