Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Uh, I was talking about multiarch, not pure64, which is what we're
> proposing to have in sarge... Perhaps you missed that?
It sure sounded at one point like you wanted it in sarge *so that* it
could be "proved" for LSB inclusion.
> <Shrug> Sure, though I'm honestly not entirely sure about their position
> on it beyond something similar to yours- "Let's have it in sid and see
> what happens...", yet the decision for it to be in sid isn't the RM's or
> tech-ctte's decision, aiui, it's the ftpmaster's (I think anyway?, I
> don't recall that ever being made very clear...).
No, not the RM's; but the tech-ctte could surely make a final
decision.
I don't think there is any reason for the ftpmaster to refuse to admit
it to sid merely on the grounds that it doesn't comply with LSB; that
has never been a requirement. Regardless, what happens with sid isn't
before me, because nobody has proposed a GR about what happens with
sid. I'm addressing only the GR proposed in the subject line:
"release sarge with amd64".
> > If that is really the only thing, then just do it. Of course, it only
> > works on a pure64 system, but it does work, and works just fine, and
> > conforms to the standard.
>
> No, it doesn't, not entirely, because the 32bit loader isn't there..
> And there are 64bit libs in /lib instead of 32bit libs... That's what I
> mean when I say that it's not LSB compliant.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Mere failure to run 32-bit apps in itself doesn't seem like a critical
bug to me: provided that the failure is blindingly obvious, and not
something that happens sometimes, for some apps and not others, or
only after the app starts. What are the errors you get if you try to
run a 32-bit app on the pure-64 bit system?
Thomas
Reply to: