* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'm disputing this. So far, I offer as evidence the fact that 32 bit > userland has been a crucial element in amd64's success. So far as counter > evidence, I'm getting handwaving and "that's not how I built my machine".
Or how a number of other people built theirs... We're showing that
there's a number of people out there who currently *use* this solution,
and that it's a damn sight better than the non-existent alternatives.
As for 32bit userland being crucial for amd64's success- that's very
likely to be the case *overall*, but it's *not* necessairly the case for
Debian's userbase, which is what we're primairly concerned with.
And, likely, there's a big difference between the two.
> > Fact of life: multiarch is vapour and will not be usable for quite a while.
>
> I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which is something other
> distributions already offer.
>
> That's not vapor.
It is with Debian though, and will continue to be for quite some time.
Talking about other distributions isn't terribly useful.
> > Care to explain how not having any 64bit userland would be better?
>
> It'll be a lot easier to support 64/32 bit userland this way.
Uh, nope, wrong... We're going to be moving to multiarch on all archs,
so this just isn't accurate.
> I've got 64+32 bit userland because my toolchain (binutils+gcc+libc)
> was built that way.
That doesn't work for Debian though, it's no where near that simple. At
one point we did have a biarch toolchain almost entirely built, but
that's not really the issue here- it's changing all of the library
packages which will be quite a bit of pain.
Stpehen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
