Re: AMD64 for sarge [Re: <rant> Package: ftpmasters, Severity: serious, ...]

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:08:52AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:35:34AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:48:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > to.  The /lib vs. /lib64 hack is bad and wrong and will be going away 
> > > in favor of multiarch, a much cleaner and more elegant solution.  
> > 
> > The rest of the universe appears to disagree with the Debian AMD64
> > porters on this issue, including existing Linux distributions and
> > commercial Unices.
> 
> What you haven't convinced me of is the relevance of this point to start
> with, since Debian AMD64 does not support 32-bit binaries at this time.
> The existing setup is completely cmopatible with AMD64 binaries from
> other platforms.
> 
> Of course, when 32-bit support arrives, it will likely be via multiarch
> and the whole /lib vs. /lib64 question will probably be irrelevant.  But
> of course, we can put in relevant symlinks at that tmie so that
> cmopatibility with others' ia32 and amd64 distributions is assured.
> 
> But we do not support 32-bit now.  What is the big deal?

Did I say anything about immediate relevance?  I said that I didn't
think multiarch was a clean, elegant, or appropriate solution.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz