[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
>> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) ...
The LSB needs to be changed to sanely implement compliance to multiple
LSB archs on a single system. That is a larger issue affection
i386/amd64, sparc/sparc64, mips/mips64/mipsN32,
mipel/mipsel64/mipselN32, powerpc/powerpc64/i386 (qemu), alpha/i386
(quemu), i386-linux/i386-kfreebsd and posisbly i386-hurd/i386-linux.
Only complying to the main LSB for the arch (i.e. amd64 for amd64)
doesn't seem to be a problem for any of the other cases so it should
not be a case for amd64.
Also I think amd64 is compatible but not compliant to i386 and amd64
LSB. Meaning ia32 and amd64 LSB compliant programs will run on
pure64. But ia32 binaries (which you can't even build) or amd64
libraries from pure64 might not run on an ia32 compliant system
(library debs don't install into an lsb compliant palce on non
debian).
The other thing needed to fix the LSB issue is a major change in
dpkg/apt that certainly won't be accepted befor sarge it released as
well as changes to _every_ source containing a library (upstream
source and debian/rules changes). Also something not fit to be done
before sarge is released.
>> ... and mirror space
>> (which will be saved using partial mirroring).
>
> Why not just fix these instead of using hacks?
As to the mirror space that problem aparently is being worked on while
its progress or ETA remains unclear. Last statement recieved sounded
like "It's ready".
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
