* Raul Miller (moth@debian.org) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > 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. It isn't going to happen. > 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. No, it isn't. > [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 don't contest that moving to multiarch later would be a problem, it's this claim you keep making that it's "fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64 bit LSB apps". It's *not*. We've been there, it was worked on for 6 months. It's not easy and it's not going to happen for sarge. > > 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. And get every package in the archive changed and updated for it .. > > 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. We are planning for migration to multiarch, from pure64 and we may even support it from i386 (it wouldn't be all that difficult, really, some discussion about how to accomplish it have already been put forth). > [Before you explained about multiarch, my only objection was the lack > of 32 bit LSB support.] That's not going to change. If ia32-libs works well enough for you, then great, if not, too bad. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature