Re: Instead of the amd64 GR: rudimentary amd64 support for sarge, need sponsor.
--- Goswin von Brederlow
<brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> escreveu:
> Fabricio Cannini <segfaulter@yahoo.com.br> writes:
>
> > Hi creatures !!
> >
> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>given the current sarge deadline and the opinions
> expressed by some of
> >>the release team a full amd64 port in sarge is not
> going to happen. So
> >>lets move on.
> >>
> >>
> >>What else can we do for amd64 users?
> >>
> >>We have a fully working i386 port which works on
> amd64 systems too.
> >>What we need most now is support for:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Excuse me if it sounds lame but, what you're
> proposing is to put this
> > already working port on, say, 'experimental' or
> 'unstable' (most
> > probably experimental), and work on this packages
> in order to have
> > for Sarge +1 a stable amd64 release?
>
> No, I propose adding 4-6 more debs to the i386 sid
> (and 10 days later
> to sarge) to add some amd64 support to i386. About
> the same amount as
> sparc64 has in sparc, s390x in s390 or powerpc64 in
> powerpc.
Sounds cool if that's all that is needed,
but what will still be missing to fully support amd64?
I think it's safer to do it on testing,
and when Sarge+1 comes out to add it on stable.
By the time that Sarge comes out,
we must shout out loud that the amd64 support is not
as good as other platforms.
YES, i know that other people have said it before,
but seems useful remember such kind of thing.
>
> With that users could run a 64 bit postgresql while
> keeping the rest
> of the system i386 stable. Or use the 8GB ram they
> bought while still
> using i386 stable.
>
> >>1. Kernel support for amd64 to run 32/64 bit
> binaries
> >
> > Ability to run both 32/64bits binaries (along with
> others like posix
> > compliance)
> > are good but not (for now) essential things to
> the release.
> > It's the kind of thing that (i hope) will be
> worked out until Sarge+1.
>
> Since it can be achived within the sarge release
> plan with minimal
> work I see no reason not to do it now.
AFAIK, POSIX compliance is not sometihng
as easy as the 32/64 bits thing to be achieved,
but must be pursued too.
>
> >>I want to upload a kernel-image-2.6.7-amd64 to
> i386. That would be
> >>along the same lines as the sparc64 or s390x
> kernel image in sparc or
> >>s390 respectively. So nothing new there.
>
> MfG
> Goswin
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail agora com 100MB, anti-spam e antivírus grátis!
http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
Reply to: