Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
"D. Starner" <shalesller@writeme.com> writes:
> To become LSB compliant would involve changing half the packages in
> Debian to achieve a result to many AMD64 developers consider inelegant;
> furthermore, a multiarch design is being created that would allow
> us to install Linux binaries on NetBSD or Hurd, or ix86 binaries on
> PowerPC, provided an appropriate emulator, as well as 32-bit on a
> 64-bit system. This will require changing half the packages, but for
> a better design. It's not a hack, it's a feature.
I'd be happy to think through it, but only if you give me details.
What you've give above is a pre-processed conclusion, in which you
tell me the way you want me to think about it, but you seem to have
carefully extracted all the technical information so that I can't make
my own judgment.
Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
Why do the packages require changes to become compliant? Why is the
result in question considered inelegant? I'm a smart guy: you can
post technical details.
A multi-arch system may or may not be a good idea, but regardless,
it's irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about the inclusion
of amd64 in stable now.
> The current mirroring system can hardly be considered a hack. There's
> mumblings about space restrictions, but that's really in the people
> who set up the mirror system's bailwick. It is a little frustrating
> that s390 and friends could join, no questions ask, but AMD64 gets
> the third degree.
My recollection is that they complied with the standard.
Thomas
Reply to: