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

Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64

* Thomas Bushnell, BSG (tb@becket.net) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Uh, I was talking about multiarch, not pure64, which is what we're
> > proposing to have in sarge...  Perhaps you missed that?
> It sure sounded at one point like you wanted it in sarge *so that* it
> could be "proved" for LSB inclusion.

Oh, err, no, certainly not.  I'm saying that the LSB hasn't been changed
yet since we havn't proven multiarch yet (which we'll be doing outside
of Debian entirely, I don't expect that to even be in sid until we've at
least proved it to ourselves and have a working build chain with a
couple of the core other libraries...).

> > <Shrug> Sure, though I'm honestly not entirely sure about their position
> > on it beyond something similar to yours- "Let's have it in sid and see
> > what happens...", yet the decision for it to be in sid isn't the RM's or
> > tech-ctte's decision, aiui, it's the ftpmaster's (I think anyway?, I
> > don't recall that ever being made very clear...).
> No, not the RM's; but the tech-ctte could surely make a final
> decision.

Well, perhaps, of course, that'd be forcing someone's hand I imagine...

> I don't think there is any reason for the ftpmaster to refuse to admit
> it to sid merely on the grounds that it doesn't comply with LSB; that
> has never been a requirement.  Regardless, what happens with sid isn't

Well, yeah, that's kinda what we thought, but we kept not hearing
anything about what was going on.  All we got was something that it
might be a mirror problem, but the ftpmaster's had some other questions
as well that were never asked.

> before me, because nobody has proposed a GR about what happens with
> sid.  I'm addressing only the GR proposed in the subject line:
> "release sarge with amd64".


> > No, it doesn't, not entirely, because the 32bit loader isn't there..
> > And there are 64bit libs in /lib instead of 32bit libs...  That's what I
> > mean when I say that it's not LSB compliant.
> > 
> > Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
> Mere failure to run 32-bit apps in itself doesn't seem like a critical
> bug to me: provided that the failure is blindingly obvious, and not
> something that happens sometimes, for some apps and not others, or
> only after the app starts.  What are the errors you get if you try to
> run a 32-bit app on the pure-64 bit system?

Well, there aren't any 32bit apps in Debian, so it'd have to be
something you got from somewhere else.  Funny enough, the error would
probably be something like 'file not found' because it can't find the
loader.  I suppose I could try... sec.

arwen:/home/sfrost> ./ls        
ksh: ./ls: No such file or directory

Yup, that's the error.

arwen:/home/sfrost> ldd ls      
/usr/bin/ldd: line 1: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: No such file or directory
ldd: /lib/ld-linux.so.2 exited with unknown exit code (127)

If you've got the loader and not the libraries I'd expect an error about
not being able to load the appropriate library (in the case that you've
installed ia32-libs or whatever that provide some of the libraries, and
I think the loader).

It might look a little confusing if it says it can't load it yet the
library appears to exist..  I'm not sure if the error would include
something about missing the 32bit ABI or something like that.  I recall
on Solaris it would complain about 'Unable to load SPARC32 blahblah'.
Perhaps someone can check on that.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: