> > > Care to explain how not having any 64bit userland would be better? > > > > It'll be a lot easier to support 64/32 bit userland this way.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:15:23PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Uh, nope, wrong... We're going to be moving to multiarch on all archs, > so this just isn't accurate. You've yet to demonstrate any conflict between 64/32 bit userland and multiarch. The only conflict I've seen is the decision to make /lib be the default directory for 64 bit libraries on amd64. This has little if anything to do with multiarch -- multiarch certainly does not require this. > > I've got 64+32 bit userland because my toolchain (binutils+gcc+libc) > > was built that way. > > That doesn't work for Debian though, it's no where near that simple. At > one point we did have a biarch toolchain almost entirely built, but > that's not really the issue here- it's changing all of the library > packages which will be quite a bit of pain. How much pain? Why did you give up on biarch? [Was it only because "multiarch is better than biarch"?] Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
