* Michael Neuffer (neuffer@neuffer.info) wrote: > Additionally it is necessary that we build this port in a way that > we don't block the paths to a simple migration to a biarch ports > from the 64bit pure port. > > I think this is what most pure 64bit protagonists don't like to > think about because it makes things much more complicated for them. It's pretty obvious why, there's no clear definition about multiarch yet and it's impossible to know how difficult the transistion would be until we actually have multiarch figured out and then look at what would need to happen to transistion. It's not *useful* to think about the transistion issues before multiarch is clearly defined. I'm not even sure it's useful to worry about it after multiarch, personally I'd just reinstall. One thing is pretty obvious though, pure64 is ready *now*, as is. Therefore, it should go in and maybe even be released with sarge. It is *not* necessary to hold pure64 up until multiarch is defined and then redo pure64 to make it easier to transistion to multiarch. It's not even clear that there's some way pure64 *could* be changed to make it easier to go to multiarch. If you've got something specific that you can suggest for pure64 *now* that should be changed and can justify it then tell us what it is. Don't speculate and put impossible to fulfill requirements in place in order for pure64 to go into the archive. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature