Re: ports and multiarch

[Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:56:51PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:22:06PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > We should add official support for ppc64 and maybe sparc64 at least for use
> > as a multiarch extension to ppc/sparc, even if we do not have time to make a full
> > port. Otherwise the introduction of multiarch will likely result in a regression
> > of functionnality on ppc system.
> > 
> > Indeed, lib64* packages are superceded by multiarch and often are removed
> > due to file conflict with the multi-arch equivalent. However this leads
> > to a regression for nominally-32bit but 64bit-capable architectures that
> > do not have a 64bit suit to draw from. 
> 
> I think a true 64 port may take the oxygen out of the 32 bit port,
> potentially, which would be a shame for powerpc 32 bit users (G4,
> like mac minis, powerbooks etc.). A multiarch solution would be
> nicer for them imho.  Actually I wonder how many 32 bit powerpc
> users there are compared to 64 bit. IN the mac world, I'd wager
> more G4s than G5s (the mac pro or xserves), not sure about other
> powerpc worlds.

I don't think Debian development should be driven by retro-computing.

I'm not saying we should drop support for perfectly usable machines,
but most of those 32-bit Macs are soon going to be too slow or too
broken for practical use (if they aren't already).

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Beware of bugs in the above code;
I have only proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth