Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I'd be happy to think through it, but only if you give me details.
> What you've give above is a pre-processed conclusion, in which you
> tell me the way you want me to think about it, but you seem to have
> carefully extracted all the technical information so that I can't make
> my own judgment.
I think that's a little unfair. I assumed that people would know the
basic plan (yes, failure to anticipate what my audience knows and
doesn't know is one of my communication failures) and intend to explain
why they think this is a good plan, instead of technical details.
> Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
The part that requires 64 bit libraries to be installed in /lib64/
instead of /lib.
> Why do the packages require changes to become compliant?
Library packages have to install in /lib64 instead of /lib.
> Why is the
> result in question considered inelegant?
The fact that it supports only one ABI switch and adds new
directories to root.
> A multi-arch system may or may not be a good idea, but regardless,
> it's irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about the inclusion
> of amd64 in stable now.
The difference between what AMD64 does right now and the standard asks
for is that we don't do a multiarch system. (The standard asks for a
biarch system.) If it's not a good idea, then AMD64 shouldn't follow
There won't be an AMD64 with /lib64 in sarge. It's just too
destabilizing. It seems counter-productive to transition to /lib64,
and then move all those libraries to /lib/amd64-linux-gnu/ later.
<http://www.linuxbase.org/~taggart/multiarch.html> seem to be the most
recent articles on multiarch.
David Starner - email@example.com
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com