Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
> > dpkg.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
> already streesed mirrors.
We're talking about something several orders of magnitude smaller than
what it will take to add the amd64 port to the ftp master.
> > If we ever did get into a situation where "everything has to change at
> > the same time", we'd have a system we couldn't upgrade.
>
> They have to if you want sources to still be buildable (with configure
> defaulting to lib64 and all). And I think releasing debs with sources
> that don't compile on the arch itself (but have to be crosscompiled)
> is out of the question.
>
> You get some unpredictable errors from configure scripts or dpkg-dev
> utils errors that you only notice because the next package fails to
> get the right Depends and such. It has more problems than are obvious.
> > Any such changes are going to have to happen on a package by package
> > basis anyways.
>
> Did I mention that gcc/binutils will complain about any library not
> matching the ABI unless lib and lib64 are seperated completly,
> i.e. all lib packages are ported.
>
> I think that alone makes a partial port unsuitable for release.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that gcc won't
let you build a shared library to install in /lib if glibc is in /lib64?
> > That said, it doesn't have to be beautiful "we support every 32 bit
> > debian package". It just has needs to be of the form "we support 32
> > bit forms of the base system" such that anyone who needs to add 32 bit
> > support for some other package has a way of doing so.
> >
> > Perhaps you've already got this, but you seem to be claiming otherwise.
>
> We have ia32-libs but that is just a bonus that works very well and
> not an intended feature. 32bit support is there, pretty much as
> complete as other dists have it, but it's not considered (by the pure64
> port) an essential feature for the port. Its just a bonus. We know its
> not ia32 LSB compliant but so far it is ia32 LSB compatible (which is
> what you would care about as debian user).
That might be enough.
--
Raul
Reply to: