Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> sarge isn't supported/released, therefore this is not an issue when
>> discussing if amd64 should be released with sarge.
>
> You've confused the configuration of my machine with the issues
> I'm discussing.
>
>> > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> LSB compliance for both 32 and 64 bit apps is relevant to the GR.
No its not. The 32bit ia32 LSB part is not a goal of pure64 and should
not be.
Is it your opinion that we should ask the RM to add an excemption for
amd64 to not follow ia32 LSB before it can be added to sarge? I don't
think it is neccessary since we are compatible with the LSB but that
could be discussed with the RM.
> It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
> bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
Its impossible for sarge. read other mails in this thread.
> [For example: Have /lib64 be a symlink link to /x86_64-linux/lib and have
> /lib be a symlink to /i486-linux/lib (similar for /usr/lib*). Make sure
> that the libraries explicitly mentioned in LSB are installed in the 64
> bit library, leave the others as known bugs, to be fixed when people have
> the time and inclination. Make sure your patches respect some env var
> (perhaps MULTIARCH_HOST), and have that be set at a fairly high level.]
I think we have that already if you include ia32-libs.
>> > 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.
>
> In my opinion, the only thing painful about my above example
> implementation is that it make the things that need to be fixed painfully
> obvious.
Its the 2000 source packages needing changes that is painfull.
>> > > 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.
>
> My current objections are that you're not planning for compliance with
> LSB and you're not planning for migration to multiarch. Both will be
> a lot easier to achieve with just a little forethought.
>
> [Before you explained about multiarch, my only objection was the lack
> of 32 bit LSB support.]
We don't plan to add ia32 LSB compliance to amd64. Compatibility is
all you can hope for before multiarch.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: