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

Re: Stop the madness (Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)

joshk@triplehelix.org (Joshua Kwan) writes:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:25:15AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> - Multiarch is in no way essential for amd64. In fact most people
>> think its quite useless for that arch. The 32/64 bit issue is just a
>> transient problem and sufficiently (given the only complained so far
>> was OO and that is getting fixed now) solved by ia32-libs. There is no
>> reason to prefer 32bit versions if there is also a 64bit version for
>> amd64, which there will be.
> This is the first time I've heard of that package :)

IA64 has that package for its 32bit i386 support. All we did was add
amd64 to the Architecture files in debian/control and voila. :)

>> In two or three month amd64 will have had ~6 month of testing by its
>> users. Someone said previously that that time span should be invested
>> into testing before making a decision.
> Before testing occurs people have to acknowledge the introduction of
> amd64 in their packages (that is, core stuff like debootstrap, etc, need
> to get uploaded to amd64 with such support.)

Already done. There is very very little pending for core and standard

> Oh yeah and we need to get it into mainline sid I suppose.

That is the big show stopper currently.

>> And a large section of those pending bugs is adding 'amd64' in
>> debian/control.
> I think the time has come to start NMUing ... it's not like the package
> can be broken just by adding that.

But by recompiling. :)

I added all the "add amd64 in debian/control" bugs I reported to the
BSP wiki page in a seperate section yesterday. Feel free to help out
and NMU.

>> I asked Martin Schulze on irc about adding amd64 later in a point
>> release and he already vetoed it. Its either sarge or sarge+1 unless
>> you get the decision overturned.
> Well, the problem is, sarge is too close and given our track record
> sarge+1 is too far. So perhaps it would be better to strive towards a
> faster sarge+1 than shoot for making an amd64 point release.
> Or you can go ahead and _announce_ the unofficial amd64 port to the
> world at large.

We would certainly create a stable repository that resembles the
official stable as closely as possible. Some debian mirrors have
already offered to carry mirrors for it (and unstable amd64).

I don't see a reason why unofficial cd isos should not also be made
and published and sold by distributors.

But I wouldn't name it "unofficial stable amd64" but rather call it a
"amd64 sarge snapshot" or something that makes clear its not
Debian. Details can be hamered out when it comes around to that.

You can be pretty sure someone will make a release given the state the
amd64 port is in. There is just too much demand from users coming up.


Reply to: