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

Re: Upcoming Debian multiarch support (amd64, sparc64, s390x, mips64) [affects sarge slightly]

* Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > additional registers.  Debian *needs* to support an amd64 system which
> > is purely 64bit, through multiarch or a native system.  If we're not
> > going to do that then we might as well forget supporting the
> > architecture at all.
> Thats the plan eventually, apart from things noone wants (unpopular or
> buggy packages) or can't fix (dosemu, wine, mplayer+win32 codecs,
> non-free).

Alright, then there's no point discussing it if we're agreed on that

> > One of the main *reasons* for multiarch is so that we can still support
> > non-free crap and commercial crap while the rest of the system is 64bit.
> > Obviously there are situations where it's useful to provide 32bit
> > libraries to support these applications, that doesn't mean we should
> > avoid allowing our users to have pure 64bit systems if they don't have
> > non-free or commercial things which require 32bit libraries.
> Thats why I'm for splitting every lib package into lib, lib-common,
> lib-dev, lib-dev-common (where -common is needed) instead of having
> the amd64 versions depend on the i386 versions for common files.

I don't see this as a very good option, personally.  I'd expect the
number of -common packages to increase dramatically and would think
there's a better solution.

> > > >From what I hear IA64 has no i386 compatibility, just some emulation
> > > (which of cause is slow). I didn't include IA64 (or ppc64) because
> > > noone from that port has shown intrest in the multiarch stuff till
> > > now.
> > 
> > In this sense we need to be consistent across architectures so
> > regardless of their interest it will affect them and therefore those
> > archs should be included in the discussion.
> Should we include m68k, arm, alpha too?  Well, for alpha you can make
> the case with True64 32 bit binaries (like Netscape was). But the
> other archs should not be affected at all by any change. Not even
> i386, sparc, mips, s390 should be affected, since then we would loose
> compatibility to existing packages.

I said 'those' archs, not all archs.  We don't need to include archs
which don't have 64/32bit dual support unless we start getting into the
discussion (again) of supporting optimizations as subarchs (ie: 486,
586, 686, etc).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: