* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'd be happy to think through it, but only if you give me details.
http://raw.no/debian/amd64-multiarch-2 I'm not 100% sure that's the latest, hopefully others will correct me if it isn't. It's got the gist of it though. > Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with? It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn't have 32bit libraries in /lib. Actually, the i386 loader bit might not be right anymore w/ ia32-lib... Even so though, there's only a few 32bit libraries installed. The other thing is that /lib64 is a symlink and not it's own directory into which 64bit libraries are placed.. It's not immediately clear to me if this is really a violation of the LSB or not though. > Why do the packages require changes to become compliant? Why is the They would have to be modified to install packages into /lib64 for amd64 instead of into /lib like every other arch. > result in question considered inelegant? I'm a smart guy: you can > post technical details. It doesn't solve all of the problem cases, and clutters up / to boot. Lots of technical details *have* been posted, it's not like we developed this in seclusion, there was a talk at DebConf about it, the proposals have been posted here and other places previously, and it's received comments from the dpkg, RM and other teams. > 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. I agree, let's not focus on multi-arch right now, but on the issues regarding amd64 inclusion in sarge. > My recollection is that they complied with the standard. It's expected that the LSB is going to be changed. Additionally, compling with the LSB isn't really an option- it'd probably take a year or more to modify all of the packages, not to mention the Debian infrastructure packages. Then we'd turn around and do it again to support multiarch, not exactly a useful way to spend our time. *Certainly* if this is the issue then please tell us and then listen to our arguments as to why we don't see IA32/LSB compliance as a problem. Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
