Re: powerpc64, multiarch vs biarch and etch ...
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:37:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > And multiarch lacked (for a long time) a bit of momentum. It goes
>> > better now, but it's clearly too late for etch.
>> The ability to NMU packages would have added a hell of a lot of
>> momentum. That would have been the help the release team could have
> No, sorry, the right way to get a change like multiarch done is by
> building consensus that it's an appropriate thing to do, not by NMUing
> core packages over the reservations of the maintainers.
So who do I have to convince that multiarch is appropriate? I haven't
seen anyone speak out against its basic goals.
Everyone I've spoken too sees the sense in supporting s390x, sparc64,
mips64, mipsel64, powerpc64 and ia32 for amd64. And after a few
minutes discussion they usualy see why multiarch is a good solution to
There just is no anti-multiarch movement that needs a change of
mind. Apart from ftp-master blocking the glibc split there has only
been inaction or disintrest but no opposition.