Re: amd64 and sarge
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
>> * Raul Miller (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040729 20:10]:
>> > [...]
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Can we please just finish this discussion.
> If people will stop making false assertions, I'll stop offering counters
> to those assertions.
>> All good (and also some bad) reasons are already told. You believe
>> that amd64 is not worth to be added to the archive until it's bi-arch,
>> whereas the porters consider different, and tell us that it'll never
>> be bi-arch, because multi-arch is the next step - and furthermore,
>> both (bi- and multi-arch) is only possible after release of sarge.
> I believe it's very easy to add bi-arch to the current system, and that
> it would be worthwhile adding bi-arch to the current system, but I no
> longer believe that bi-arch is a reason to hold up including amd64 in sid.
> Bi-arch support is just too easy to add at this point for "adding bi-arch
> support" to be a reason to hold back amd64.
Bi-Arch is impossible to add in sarge.
Raul-Miller-Bi-Arch support could be added. But what would be the
difference to what pure64 already has? From what I remember the only
difference would be the missing ia32-libs-dev package and turning
multiarch support in gcc back on.
>> So, please leave it at this level.
> I think leaving things the way they are would be a bad idea.
If you want create a login on alioth and I can give you access to your
own biarch repository where you can implement all you want.
Otherwise please leave it at this level.