On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 30.11.2016 13:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Well, there's a bunch of questions there - people seem generally > > negative on x32 and the use cases for multilib with tooling for early > > boot and so on don't seem to apply in any case. I'd really have > > expected that it'd just be added as a new architecture at this point. > it's available in the GCC packages for a while now. Sure, but there's a bunch more stuff needed. > > install the multiarch runtime? The motivation I'm aware of for still > > having the multilib packages is to allow other multilib packages to be > > built with them but I'm not seeing any packages written in D (and it'd > > be pretty surprising TBH given the narrow use case) so I'm not seeing > > the use case. > If we remove everything where "people seem generally negative on FOO", we'll > end > up with a really small distro. We still require the multilibs for 32bit > architectures needing to build 64bit kernels, and I'd rather not ask people to > work around issues when they can be fixed. These are good reasons for having multilib for C and (to a bit of a lesser extent) C++ but this is D which is a different thing - it's a new language which is much less widely used. It is much more difficult to see the use case for D, as far as I can tell the applications don't really need multilibs.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
