On Sun, 02 May 2004 09:45:12 +0000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 11:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:02:06PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> > > Not recompiling everything saves a lot of time - and potential trouble. >> > > I've >> > > no deep knowledge of ppc64 interna, and if you'd say that it has no >> > > major >> > > drawbacks I'm really fine with "just" trying to set up kernel, binutils >> > > and >> > > certain *lib* packages. >> > >> > It doesn't have _major_ drawbacks, but it's probably better at this >> > point do a biarch yes. >> >> How can it possibly be considered better when there is presently no support >> in the packaging toolchain and no workable design has been proposed? > > How is amd64 doing ? You don't have biarch working for that ? Regardless > of biarch or not, ppc64 will require both gcc and glibc to be more recent > than the current unstable 3.3. (Which is a good thing imho, getting stuck > with no TLS and NPTL on ppc32 is a major pain)
actually since qemu reached a quite usable state(*) already it would even make sence to have more than one/two/... architectures installed. > Ben (*) I could run the x86 linux acroread binary (even print etc)... and was almost able to finish a win2k install (it stopped in the middle of the hardware detection)
