On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 19.08.2009 16:33, Bastian Blank wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote: > >>>On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>>>I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two > >>>>proposals: > >>>> - have an inplace-transition building required library packages for an > >>>> upgrade as biarch packages and continue to use the current sparc > >>>> name. > >>>This would mean that many packages needs to be modified. Is it really > >>>worth the work needed if we consider the availability of multiarch in > >>>the next time? > >>you'll end up modifying a different set of packages for the new > >>architecture name in control and rules files. I don't know if this is > >>less or more work. > > > >If I understand this correctly, this would need the modification off all > >library packages to implement biarch semantic. > > No, "just" a subset that an update from 32->64bit userland does > work. Again, I don't know how big this subset will be.
Matthias, can you please make a definite statement on whether you, as a toolchain maintainer, are willing to support the existing 32-bit userland with a 64-bit kernel, or you consider a transition to 64-bit userland a necessary condition for sparc to be released with squeeze. This will be an important factor for the release team to determine what is going to happen. Thanks. -- Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org