Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
> > Those are two reasons.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
> > cedega (forinstance).
> >
> > More generally, by not providing 32 bit support, we're reducing the
> > bang/buck ratio.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:18:39PM +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> Let me put it that way:
>
> You Do Not Get To Decide What Hardware People Buy.
>
> Agreed?
Sure.
> Fact of life: amd64 boxen are going to be very common.
> Fact of life: for very large subset of debian userland, pure64 works and
> on these boxen it works better than debian/i386.
I'm disputing this. So far, I offer as evidence the fact that 32 bit
userland has been a crucial element in amd64's success. So far as counter
evidence, I'm getting handwaving and "that's not how I built my machine".
> Fact of life: multiarch is vapour and will not be usable for quite a while.
I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which is something other
distributions already offer.
That's not vapor.
> Care to explain how not having any 64bit userland would be better?
It'll be a lot easier to support 64/32 bit userland this way.
> > > It currently looks like ia32 will be replaced by amd64/ia32e as both
> > > AMD64 and intel are changing the products and adding the
> > > 64-bit extension does not seem to be very expensive for the CPU
> > > manufacturers.
> >
> > Agreed. And, Debian's amd64 currently isn't positioned to be useful in
> > this sense.
>
> In which sense? Given an amd64 box (and that's not up to you), having
> that beast is better than not having it. If nothing else, i386 with
> amd64 kernel and pure64 in chroot is *obviously* better than i386 alone.
In the sense of sane a straightforward 32+64 bit environment.
I have an amd64 box -- that is indeed up to me.
I've got 64+32 bit userland because my toolchain (binutils+gcc+libc)
was built that way.
--
Raul
Reply to: