On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote: > >> Multiarch, bi-arch, some people want them, that's great, but they're > >> simply offtopic with respect to the amd64 port. > > > > That said, the amd64 port can accomodate both without much problem. > > > > Bi-arch being less painful than multiarch, in my > > opinion -- it needs to touch far fewer packages: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00244.html > > Biarch needs all packages to change. I repeat: _all_. > Multiarch only libs and debs with plugins. > > If you read/hear/say anything else its just not true.
Did you actually properly read his proposal? It actually makes sense. What he's saying is what we currently use as bi-arch is not the way to go. We should not install all libs twice, once as i386 and once as amd64. You only install the amd64 once. It also says that we don't need to move around all amd64 libs to the /lib64 dir. Only those for those that we make bi-arch we should put the i386 lib in /lib and the amd64 one in /lib64. All other amd64 libs can be in /lib until we feel the need to make it bi-arch. What it comes down too is that for all libs in the ia32-libs package we make an amd64 deb that has both the i386 and amd64 libs in it. This first requires that we have a bi-arch gcc. Then we can compile all those libs once using -m32 and once using -m64. I think this is a much better solution that the ia32-libs too, since that's just an ugly hack that uses i386 .debs, and you'd have to wait for fixes in those libs until someone makes a new ia32-libs package. I think this is a solution that isn't too much work and can perfectly work. It should make migration from i386 rather easy, and even gets rid of the lib64 symlinks. Kurt
