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

Re: multiarch?

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > I hope not ... I'm a quite happy owner of amd64 machines, so happy that 
> > I've only amd64 machines for my desktops, and maintaining a chroot to 
> > use openoffice is quite annoying (same is true for quake/et but I 
> > assume it won't bother debian that much ;p)
> Wouldn't you be better off with a native Oo.org rather than multiarch
> in this case?
> > IMHO, either amd64/pure64/... will become a release arch and in that 
> > case we have to have a solution for multiarch, either amd64 is not a 
> > released arch .. and that bothers me.
> If everything in main can be ported to pure64 there is little need for
> multiarch on amd64.

Sure, native code is always better.  But that still won't help when
sharing binaries from other distros to and from Debian.  Because those
other commonly available binaries of which people think are so
critical will be 32-bit.  (I am referring to those evil flash plugins,
acrobat, etc. in addition to the Quake mentioned by the previous
poster.  But UT and Starcraft are more my style.)

Personally I don't need the flash plugins.  (Starcraft I will have to
think about.  :-) But I have yet to install GNU/Linux on a system for
someone else who has not considered flash as required.  Of course the
hard liners in Debian will take the stance that they are non-free so
nobody should run them.  But that will just drive people away from
Debian and to another distro and that is not really good for anyone.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: