[arch-ports] [Fwd: Re: [arch-dev] x64 some thoughts]

[Moritz Alexander Esser]

Hey Alexander!

I've wrote a script to create a install cd for arch64. AndyRTR should
have the newest versions since I'm to busy to come online at the moment.
Ask him! I guess he could help you. If not: mail me ;)

Moritz

Alexander Baldeck wrote:
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [arch-dev] x64 some thoughts
> Date: 	Tue, 23 May 2006 23:40:23 +0200
> From: 	Alexander Baldeck <kth5 at archlinuxppc.org>
> Reply-To: 	Development Discussion for Arch Linux <arch-dev at archlinux.org>
> To: 	Development Discussion for Arch Linux <arch-dev at archlinux.org>
> References: 	<200605232310.25106.t.powa at gmx.de> 
> <1148419857.3660.14.camel at server.groot.local>
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>>
>>   
> The thing is that archppc does not yet have an installer, this is the 
> biggest flaw for making it official. I'm tired of calling for help and 
> am quite proficient to do it manually with some live cd. Even then, I 
> seriously lack the time to spend like 3 hours in a row not only waiting 
> but actually doing something. :)
> So if that issue is being "fixed" somehow, I would agree to make it 
> officially available. Not before!
> 
> A 64/32bit hybrid sooner or later will of course be there for ppc as 
> well. There's the G5 and POWER5 which are pure 64bit. They are backwards 
> compatible just like the x86_64 though, meaning they can run 32bit code. 
> With one dev? Hell no, impossible!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> arch-dev mailing list
> arch-dev at archlinux.org
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> arch-ports mailing list
> arch-ports at archlinux.org
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-ports
> 
>