On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have > to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I > noticed some babbling about ppc64, sparc64, mips64 and s390x > architectures but nothing that ended up in "will be included in the > archive, hence, requres buildd and development machines".
> If this has changed, most probably debian-admin won't deny two > machines for these purposes. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Question to the release and archive people: Is there such a > requirement? Will such architectures indeed be included the archive? > Do we really need machines of the particular 64 bit architectures? If > so for which architectures exactly? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No decision has been made about including such partial architectures in the archive yet. I think it's the logical way to go once multiarch matures, but it hasn't really been discussed in-depth. The need for autobuilders capable of running binaries of these types exists whether or not we implement multiarch, though, because we already have sparc, powerpc, i386, and s390 library packages in the archive providing 64-bit variants for these architectures; having 32-bit autobuilders stumble over security builds of glibc would be a bad thing. But this may have been largely mitigated in the meantime by some changes to dpkg-dev (dpkg-shlibdeps) that eliminate the dependency on ldd. If the existing lib packages can be autobuilt, I don't see any need to rush additional 64-bit autobuilders, since I think the current biarch approach to libraries is pretty lousy and shouldn't be expanded given that multiarch is on the horizon. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
