On 05.12.2016 11:29, Mark Brown wrote: > 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.
sorry, I don't understand what you mean. >>> 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. Well, there are less requirements for the C and C++ runtime libraries (basically glibc), but the D runtime library requires one more, zlib. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Matthias PS: I pinged about a) moving back zconf.h to /usr/include and b) running dh_makeshlibs for the 64bit multilib variant. Any update on this?
