Re: x32: a success story, and thanks to you all!
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:14:27PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 05:29:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:43:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > No, they should add amd64 as a foreign architecture.
> >
> > Should we do this by default for x32 in d-i? (Yes, I know d-i doesn't
> > support x32 in other ways yet, but we might as well get started at some
> > point.)
>
> x32 has the following major use cases:
> * vserver hosting
> * underpowered netbooks
> * get-any-last-percent-of-speed number crunching
>
> At least the first two prefer a small installed size, which means a pure
> system without two sets of binaries.
There's no reason why adding amd64 as a foreign architecture means two
sets of binaries. If you don't want foreign-arch packages, don't
install them. Adding the architecture just makes them available without
messing around.
This is especially important if installing the kernel is going to
require multiarch, as Ben said upthread.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: