Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG (tb@becket.net) wrote:
>> I'd be happy to think through it, but only if you give me details.
>
> http://raw.no/debian/amd64-multiarch-2
>
> I'm not 100% sure that's the latest, hopefully others will correct me if
> it isn't. It's got the gist of it though.
>
>> Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
>
> It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn't have
> 32bit libraries in /lib. Actually, the i386 loader bit might not be
> right anymore w/ ia32-lib... Even so though, there's only a few 32bit
It does if ia32-libs is installed. The lsb package for amd64 should
Depend on ia32-libs. Thats a minor change and not a problem.
> libraries installed. The other thing is that /lib64 is a symlink and
> not it's own directory into which 64bit libraries are placed.. It's not
> immediately clear to me if this is really a violation of the LSB or not
> though.
I don't think it is. The LSB does not say anything about dirs and
links but says that certain things must be reachable via certain paths
(i.e. the ld for amd64 must be found through /lib64/) and that we
fullfill.
What is not fully compliant is that most sources put their libs in
/lib or /usr/lib which means that you can't use debian libraries on a
non debian system without some extra work (moving files or changing
ld.conf). We don't see that as a problem for sid inclusion.
>> Why do the packages require changes to become compliant? Why is the
>
> They would have to be modified to install packages into /lib64 for amd64
> instead of into /lib like every other arch.
>
>> result in question considered inelegant? I'm a smart guy: you can
>> post technical details.
See other posts from today by me.
> It doesn't solve all of the problem cases, and clutters up / to boot.
> Lots of technical details *have* been posted, it's not like we developed
> this in seclusion, there was a talk at DebConf about it, the proposals
> have been posted here and other places previously, and it's received
> comments from the dpkg, RM and other teams.
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree, let's not focus on multi-arch right now, but on the issues
> regarding amd64 inclusion in sarge.
>
>> My recollection is that they complied with the standard.
>
> It's expected that the LSB is going to be changed. Additionally,
> compling with the LSB isn't really an option- it'd probably take a year
> or more to modify all of the packages, not to mention the Debian
> infrastructure packages. Then we'd turn around and do it again to
> support multiarch, not exactly a useful way to spend our time.
>
> *Certainly* if this is the issue then please tell us and then listen to
> our arguments as to why we don't see IA32/LSB compliance as a problem.
>
> Stephen
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: