* Raul Miller (moth@debian.org) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:38:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Apparently you have woody/i386 (our stable arch) running on an amd64 box > > today and are concerned about an upgrade path to amd64 in sarge. > > Actually, it's sarge. sarge isn't supported/released, therefore this is not an issue when discussing if amd64 should be released with sarge. > > You're right, there isn't one. The answer is very simple- wait for > > sarge+1 and multiarch. If you're happy with i386 on amd64 today then > > feel free to continue to use it, I don't believe anything we're > > introducing would cause you any problems there. > > That's not my concern. I can deal with the issues on my machine, > just fine. Do you have some issue that's relevent to the GR to discuss then? Or to pure64's inclusion in sarge? If not, then let's move this to debian-amd64 where it'd be at least closer to on-topic. > But this is reminding me of some of the pain from the /usr/doc -> > /usr/share/doc/ transition. [Where most everyone thought it was easy > right up until it became a big hairy mess.] I'd rather not go through > something like that again. [And why did we go through that at all? > For LSB compliance.] Uh, multiarch *will* be painful. biarch *would* have been painful too. We're not disputing that, that's why we're *NOT* asking for biarch or multiarch to be part of sarge. Not even close. We're interested in having pure64 released with sarge so that Debian users can use their amd64 systems reasonably. > > I hope this clears up what your complaint with pure64 is so that other > > people can read it and judge themselves how they feel about it. > > Not even close. You could have used that as an opportunity to clarify yourself. Unfortunately you didn't, so I'm not really sure what your complaint w/ pure64 being part of sarge is now. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature