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

Re: amd64 and sarge

* Raul Miller (moth@debian.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 12:34:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > That's what pure64 *is*.  The number of people 'upgrading' from 32bit
> > systems is probably around 1 (that being you), the rest of us have moved
> > on to pure64 already, and did so a long ass time ago.
> If this logic were correct, no one would need to install amd64 in
> the future.

This statement just doesn't make any sense.

> Maybe you can't imagine that people would replace a motherboard and keep
> the same hard drive, but that doesn't mean nobody works that way.

People might do that, fewer people do that today than did it in the
past but even so, people are likely to expect to need to reinstall in
that case.  Certainly if they do their research and they want to take
advantage of the new motherboard/processor they've got they're likely to
*want* to do a new install.

> > This is just blatently false.  There certainly is gain in making every
> > package supported on both architectures.  It gives our users *options*.
> > For the amd64 side, it allows programs (*all* of them) to use more than 
> > 2G of memory if they have a need to, it makes *most* of them run faster 
> > and more effeciently.  We need the i386 stuff anyway since there are
> > i386-only systems out there today.  Perhaps some day we will be able to
> > remove i386, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
> You're talking about optimization.  If you're really concerned about
> optimization, you'd be talking about building and installing packages
> from source.  That offers far more in the way of choices and tailoring.

Uh, being able to access > 2G of memory isn't what I'd consider an
'optimization'.  Being able to access many more registers is closer to
an optimization but it can be done for all cases, and will work on all
amd64 platforms, and is much more likely to speed things up than slow
them down.  Regardless, however, I want the programs I install to be
fast, effecient, and in some cases they'll need to address > 2G of
memory.  That doesn't mean I want to compile them all myself, I sure as
hell don't, that's why I use Debian, so I don't have to.

> My biarch proposal doesn't address how to make sure amd64 packages don't
> replace an i386 packages across upgrades of those packages, but that's
> because I don't care about that issue -- not because it can't be done.

Uh, I'm not interested in making sure amd64 packages don't replace i386
packages.  I've really got nfc where theis comment came from.

> > The current pure64 port has gone far beyond the half-ass biarch you're 
> > referring to.  Unfortunately, you can't manage to see that.
> False.
> First, in a very literal sense, the pure64 port is incorporated in the
> biarch I'm referring to.

From what I saw, maybe a few bits and pieces of it here and there.

> Second, the changes I've proposed have obviously not been incorporated
> into pure64.

That's because they're not necessary or useful.

> More fundamentally, "half-assed" is purely pejorative, and most of what
> you're saying is more about belittling than conveying useful information.

It's half-assed because it's addressing only perhaps 1% of the packages
in Debian.  This is so that you can claim how 'easy' it is while making
the assumption that no one will care that they're running i386 on their


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: