* Raul Miller (moth@debian.org) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:15:23PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Uh, nope, wrong... We're going to be moving to multiarch on all archs, > > so this just isn't accurate. > > You've yet to demonstrate any conflict between 64/32 bit userland > and multiarch. I fail to understand how you still don't get it. multiarch *is* 64/32bit userland. Is there something you don't understand about that? > The only conflict I've seen is the decision to make /lib be the > default directory for 64 bit libraries on amd64. This has > little if anything to do with multiarch -- multiarch certainly > does not require this. Uh, have you read the multiarch proposal? *All* libraries will be in /lib under multiarch. Go read the proposal. pure64 is NOT multiarch. pure64 is what we're talking about. > > That doesn't work for Debian though, it's no where near that simple. At > > one point we did have a biarch toolchain almost entirely built, but > > that's not really the issue here- it's changing all of the library > > packages which will be quite a bit of pain. > > How much pain? Alot, thousands of packages to modify. > Why did you give up on biarch? It doesn't handle all of the problem cases. It's also ugly as sin. > [Was it only because "multiarch is better than biarch"?] It doesn't handle all of the problem cases. Multiarch does. Multiarch is therefore better, so the answer to this last question is 'yes'. Of course, no one was really working on biarch anymore because it didn't solve all the problem cases- this is what lead to the development of multiarch. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature