Re: Sparc release requalification
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 19.08.2009 16:33, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>>>I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two proposals:
> >>>> - have an inplace-transition building required library packages for an
> >>>> upgrade as biarch packages and continue to use the current sparc name.
> >>>This would mean that many packages needs to be modified. Is it really
> >>>worth the work needed if we consider the availability of multiarch in
> >>>the next time?
> >>you'll end up modifying a different set of packages for the new
> >>architecture name in control and rules files. I don't know if this is
> >>less or more work.
> >
> >If I understand this correctly, this would need the modification off all
> >library packages to implement biarch semantic.
>
> No, "just" a subset that an update from 32->64bit userland does
> work. Again, I don't know how big this subset will be.
Matthias, can you please make a definite statement on whether you, as a
toolchain maintainer, are willing to support the existing 32-bit userland
with a 64-bit kernel, or you consider a transition to 64-bit userland
a necessary condition for sparc to be released with squeeze. This will
be an important factor for the release team to determine what is going
to happen.
Thanks.
--
Jurij Smakov jurij@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
Reply to: