Bug#246547: glibc: amd64 support is missing
tags 246547 wishlist
thanks
At Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:53:06 +0200,
Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 04-Apr-29 08:05, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > I'm a bit concerned about amd64 - Have the discussions now been settled
> > for the whole true-64-bit-arch versus the everything-in-/libc64 thing?
> >
> > If you can refer me to specific mailing list postings that show
> > concensus, that'd be great.
>
> I cannot speak for others on this matter. I followed the
> postings on the amd64 mailing list for some time and exchanged some
> mails with others who try to make the amd64 port work. As I see it,
> almost everybody is working in the direction of the 'pure64' port
> at the moment (with 'lib64' as just a symlink to 'lib' and
> without any support for 32bit libraries at this time).
>
> I do not know of any kind of 'official' consensus. However, I think
> that most people would agree that the right approach is
> to create a functional pure64-bit port as a first step and
> to add general multiarch support (as specified in
> http://www.linuxbase.org/~taggart/fhs-multiarch.html) to Debian later.
>
> A fully functional pure64-bit port for the amd64 architecture doesn't
> seem to be very far away. Many packages have already made the necessary
> changes. Most packages have been compiled for (pure64-bit) amd64
> (I compiled about 8000 packages myself) and there is even a working
> installer for amd64.
I disagree with this patch. Libraries should put on /lib64 without
symlinks because of supporting 32 bit applications. How about
/usr/lib64 ?
I think you should discuss about the whole support of biarch (amd64,
mips 3 archs, ppc64, and so on). You need to look at #190399. In
this bug report, Arnd tried to support amd64 with his first biarch
proposal:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=190399
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: