Re: ppc64 port
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 11:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:02:06PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Not recompiling everything saves a lot of time - and potential trouble. I've
> > > no deep knowledge of ppc64 interna, and if you'd say that it has no major
> > > drawbacks I'm really fine with "just" trying to set up kernel, binutils and
> > > certain *lib* packages.
> > It doesn't have _major_ drawbacks, but it's probably better at this
> > point do a biarch yes.
> How can it possibly be considered better when there is presently no support
> in the packaging toolchain and no workable design has been proposed?
How is amd64 doing ? You don't have biarch working for that ? Regardless
of biarch or not, ppc64 will require both gcc and glibc to be more recent
than the current unstable 3.3. (Which is a good thing imho, getting stuck
with no TLS and NPTL on ppc32 is a major pain)