> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040729 20:10]: > > [...] On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:37:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Can we please just finish this discussion.
If people will stop making false assertions, I'll stop offering counters to those assertions. > All good (and also some bad) reasons are already told. You believe > that amd64 is not worth to be added to the archive until it's bi-arch, > whereas the porters consider different, and tell us that it'll never > be bi-arch, because multi-arch is the next step - and furthermore, > both (bi- and multi-arch) is only possible after release of sarge. False. I believe it's very easy to add bi-arch to the current system, and that it would be worthwhile adding bi-arch to the current system, but I no longer believe that bi-arch is a reason to hold up including amd64 in sid. Bi-arch support is just too easy to add at this point for "adding bi-arch support" to be a reason to hold back amd64. > So, please leave it at this level. I think leaving things the way they are would be a bad idea. -- Raul
