On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 01:26:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > another month has passed and DebConf happened, so we have a few more > > changes to announce. > > Release Goals > > ============= > I guess from the above, and previous mails from the multi-arch proposers, > that this means that multi-arch is now dead for etch, right ? I don't see that anything in that mail should be interpreted as a statement either for or against multiarch in etch. We certainly aren't going to be endorsing 0-day NMUs for multiarch when the current blockers all relate to the groundwork that has to be implemented in the base packages -- this is work that needs to be done, or at least approved of, by the respective maintainers. > Does this mean that if we want userland powerpc64 support, that we should > push biarch version of some of the libs needed by those tools needing > 64bit access ? We already have a few of those in the archive. Biarch is a horrible, non-scalable, bletcherous design. With or without multiarch support, the fewer biarch packages there are in the archive, the better, IMHO. But I'm not an ftpmaster, so MHO doesn't actually count for much here since I'm not the one who decides how many biarch packages are too many. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature