On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:30:57PM +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 23:10 +0200, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > Hi
> > hmm i don't know how this was all organized but i see some real problems in
> > x64 organisation:
> > - cvs get broken by ppl that don'T even inform us about their doing
> > - they should be at least on the dev team that we can talk to them and they
> > can inform us about their doing.
> > - me is scared by those ppl that say on forum they want to be more bleeding
> > edge then i686, when all packages should be the same status not that one
> > port runs in front of the other.
> > - there was no discussion about that at all on ML how to handle that stuff.
> > - the new gcc,glibc stuff rebuild for 0.8 will be a big task so this must be
> > organised well, else it becomes a fiasco.
> >
> > so please hear that call as it is now it causes a lot of trouble.
> > any other opinions out there?
>
> One more thing: the amd64 port comes without multilib support. lib ->
> lib64 symlinks are all over the place, etc. IMHO we should have some
> quality standards for this:
>
> - kernel should support 32bit binaries (AFAIK it does)
> - all libs should be installed in either /lib64 or /lib, not both.
> - 32bit runtime libraries and crosscompilers should be available as
> separate packages. Libs should go in /lib, or if this is chosen for
> 64bit already, /lib32.
>
> Packages should be in sync with i686, not ahead of it. One thing that
> doesn't look so good: why did we start this project with x86_64 in the
> first place, the ppc port is much more grown up. If ppc would have
> worked out, we could have included x86_64 later then.
While I love being a go-between from the x86_64 community and the devs, we
should probably take these discussions over to the arch-ports list so that
everyone can comment on them.
I'm CC'ing that list with this email.
Jason
--
If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand,
things are just as they are.