Re: amd64 and sarge
* Tore Anderson
> I must admit I didn't study your proposal closely enough to form an
> opinion of its technical merits, but as testing base will freeze the
> day after tomorrow, it isn't very realistic to hope that this modified
> dpkg will make it. Thus, the biarch amd64 port won't make it either,
> leaving Sarge with no amd64 support whatsoever.
* Raul Miller
> At this point, if amd64 makes it into Sarge at all, it's going to be in
> a "pre-release" state. In other words, while it may mostly function it
> won't be up to the quality standard of the rest of the system.
This thread is about getting amd64 support for Sarge, correct? Or have
I been deceived by its subject?
> That's too bad, but there's not much I can do about it.
I agree; that would be a shame. Having only the «pure» amd64 support
in Sarge is much preferred to having no amd64 support at all, in my
opinion. Upgradeability from i386 seems unlikely before Sarge+1 in any
case, so I hope that's not considered a blocker.
Hopefully some solution can be worked out, like adding amd64 to unstable
and testing asap, making it part of the normal release process (but still
considered unsupported at the time of release), and finally slap the
"supported" sticker on it at some stable point release, iff it proves
to deserve it.
I don't have any particular objections to your biarch proposal replacing
or complimenting the planned multiarch solution for Sarge+1 - I haven't
thought about the technical issues involved at all.
Kind regards,
--
Tore Anderson
Reply to: