[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian ppc64

On 04-Dec-08 19:09, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, the decision if we will go for a native 64 port, or a bi-arch solution
> has not yet been taken, so ...

I am convinced that in the end there will be a native 64 bit port and 
people will use that one. 32 bit binaries will be legacy and only 
used in special cases like old closed source software. It will 
certainly take some time but ultimately this will be the result.
So why not do it just now?

> on the glibc situation. The glibc situation is obviously blocked by the sarge
> release, so it is not time to go steaming ahead, but to consider our options,
> and see what is best.

I fully agree. I have no intention to push anything forward before the 
release of sarge.

> My own plan is to get a biarch compiler, possibly even hacked somehow to be
> part of sarge, and then build a set of power3 and power4 ppc64 kernels, and
> maybe a statically linked pstools or whatever they are tools. More cannot be
> done for sarge.

I hope that you will succeed with this plan. A ppc64 kernel in sarge 
would of course make things _much_ easier for any 64 bit porting efforts 
regardless of the decisions which have to be made. If I can help by 
testing kernels or tools or otherwise please let me know.

> And have you thought what this would mean for mirror space ? The pure64 amd64
> got already vetoed by the debian infrastucture admins, since it would kill our
> mirroring network, so ...

Is 5 GB extra mirrorspace for a new port really so critical today?

Andreas Jochens

Reply to: