Re: Debian AMD64 Port Ready
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 12:53:13PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > >> not ship with AMD64 arch support since by 2007 (sarge+1) all desktop
>> > >> systems will be AMD64/EM64T/IA32E based. BTW Intel is expected to enable
>> > >> the 64bit extensions on the P4 3.2GHz+ chips by the end of August 2004.
>> > > Since the amd64 CPU is fine running i386 code, how could the i386 port
>> > > be useless?
>> > Because one paid for the 64bit stuff and wants to use it?
>> So you consider it useless only because the CPU could do something
>> Bogus argument.
> The hell it is. We have
> i386 port: doesn't allow doing amd64 development, including the
> kernel work on the box; has quite a few problems when used with amd64 kernel
> (mostly usable, but there is breakage and it's not easy to fix).
> amd64 port: works
> biarch effort: MIA, but if someday resurrected and brought to the
> working state, it might be more or less nice thing to have if you care about
> mixing distributions.
Biarch is obsolete and abandoned. Multiarch has taken over.
The difference is that mutliarch doesn't adhere to the borken FHS but
introduces some further changes to clean things up and do it right[tm].
> And transition from i386 to biarch, should the latter ever materialize as
> a working port, is no easier than amd64 -> biarch. Care to explain how in
> Cthulhu name the use of i386 port is preferable to use of amd64 one on the
> same boxen?
Uhm, *joey mask*, stable i386 exists and amd64 not. :)