"D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To become LSB compliant would involve changing half the packages in > Debian to achieve a result to many AMD64 developers consider inelegant; > furthermore, a multiarch design is being created that would allow > us to install Linux binaries on NetBSD or Hurd, or ix86 binaries on > PowerPC, provided an appropriate emulator, as well as 32-bit on a > 64-bit system. This will require changing half the packages, but for > a better design. It's not a hack, it's a feature.
I'd be happy to think through it, but only if you give me details. What you've give above is a pre-processed conclusion, in which you tell me the way you want me to think about it, but you seem to have carefully extracted all the technical information so that I can't make my own judgment. Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with? Why do the packages require changes to become compliant? Why is the result in question considered inelegant? I'm a smart guy: you can post technical details. A multi-arch system may or may not be a good idea, but regardless, it's irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about the inclusion of amd64 in stable now. > The current mirroring system can hardly be considered a hack. There's > mumblings about space restrictions, but that's really in the people > who set up the mirror system's bailwick. It is a little frustrating > that s390 and friends could join, no questions ask, but AMD64 gets > the third degree. My recollection is that they complied with the standard. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
