On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 07:16:09AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > Hello Sven, > > On 05-Aug-16 21:22, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:22:32PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > Anyway, the patch to support the native ppc64 kernel is very simple. > > > It adds only 8 lines and two symlinks to the linux-2.6 package. Please > > > make things a little easier for me and for the native ppc64 archive by > > > applying the patch. > > > > Yeah, well, nobody in the kernel team is convinced by your approach, so i am > > not really sure we want to to support it, but you are free to try convincing > > us again :). > > I understand that you do not have any technical reasons against the > patch, but you outrightly refuse to support the ppc64 port in any way. > > This is not a very helpful attitude. > > The native ppc64 port is explicitly supported in the current 'unstable' > versions of dpkg, apt, gcc-4.0 and many other packages. I do not see > a good reason why the linux-2.6 package should refuse to support it.
Where it should not be, and you forced that support in without any communication with the rest of the powerpc debian developpers. > If you have something against the native ppc64 port, please discuss > this in the appropriate places and try to convince the people who > like to have a full 64-bit user space on ppc64 to use something > different. Sure, i will. And once the biarch kernels are in, and we start to have ppc64 libraries and choice apps, they will move by themselves. I have some unofficial numbers showing that the pure-64 approach represent a performance hit of around 20% (8 minutes compared to 10 minutes or so for a compilation run). > I seriously doubt that you will be able to provide a reasonably > complete 64-bit environment with your biarch approach. Maybe I > will change my mind if you manage to convince the maintainers > of essential library packages like xorg-x11, gnome, qt and kde to > provide biarch versions of their packages. Well, indeed, but it would be easier to get this done if you pqrticipated. I still have to investigate and see if it is easily possible to have 64bit binaries link with 32bit libraries, which would be neat, but i fear this will not be the case. And yes, we aim at having ful biarch support for etch. > But in the meantime, please do not block the alternative native > ppc64 approach which is already there. Let's first have a study of the way we are going to go, and the advantages and inconveniences of each, and then, we can take a decision in full knowledge. Still the aim for etch is biarch support, and not polluting random package with ppc64 stuff we don't really want to have. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
