Re: ppc64 port
On Sun, 02 May 2004 09:45:12 +0000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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)
actually since qemu reached a quite usable state(*) already it would even
make sence to have more than one/two/... architectures installed.
(*) I could run the x86 linux acroread binary (even print etc)... and was
almost able to finish a win2k install (it stopped in the middle of the