Re: How to tell users that ia32-libs will go away
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:30:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 17:33 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Bastian Blank <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:00:50PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >> >> just
> >> >> to have a suiteable kernel would be quite a burden.
> >> >
> >> > The -amd64 kernel in i386 arch is some sort of upgrade tool. With
> >> > multi-arch it gets easier. Either the machine can run 64bit code, than
> >> > it is irrelevant what packages are installed from which arch. Or it
> >> > can't, then you don't need the amd64 kernel in the first place.
> >> >
> >> > Bastian
> >> Actualy that raises an interesting point:
> >> If there is no 64bit kernel in i386 then you can not safely enable
> >> multiarch to install amd64 packages (in general, kernel my just
> >> work). It is kind of a prerequisite.
> > By the same argument you can't ever enable any foreign architecture.
> > This is nonsense.
> > Ben.
> Why? I can install qemu-user-static and my system will be able to
> execute e.g. armel code.
> On the other hand installing linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64:amd64 would pull
> in for example module-init-tools:amd64, making it impossible to
> load/remove modules on the running system or reboot with a 32bit kernel.
Currently linux-image-3.2.0-1-amd64:amd64 is effectively uninstallable
on i386 since various other packages depend on module-init-tools:i386.
However, once #649437 is fixed, module-init-tools:i386 (or rather
kmod:i386) will satisfy the dependency.
Since dpkg will prefer to install packages from the native
architecture, I don't see any problem here. I suppose I'm biased by
having actually tested this.
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus