[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That would mean patching the kernel and porting the binfmt-elf ia32 to
>> be a binfmt misc extention and only loading that if ia32-libs is
>> installed.
>>
>> No way.
>
> It's rapidly becoming
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Is it just me or are these two paragraphs contradictory?
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 04:28:32AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Yes, its just you. Multiarch will not be an issue for sid for a long
>> time to come. If you want it work on it but it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To be fair, bug #248043 was filed some time ago.
>>
>> It seems to me, after reading that bug, that getting the port into sid
>> has been stalled on questions about the treatment of biarch [actually,
>
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That would mean patching the kernel and porting the binfmt-elf ia32 to
> be a binfmt misc extention and only loading that if ia32-libs is
> installed.
>
> No way.
It's rapidly becoming obvious why you folks are not succeeding; you
can't keep tra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> > That's not an adequate error--but it should be simple to write a
>> > trivial "loader" which provides a more useful error.
>> >
>> > Thomas
>>
>> You get the same error as with any binary
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be fair, bug #248043 was filed some time ago.
>
> It seems to me, after reading that bug, that getting the port into sid
> has been stalled on questions about the treatment of biarch [actually,
> probably more from the lack of an adequate statement of
> > Is it just me or are these two paragraphs contradictory?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 04:28:32AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Yes, its just you. Multiarch will not be an issue for sid for a long
> time to come. If you want it work on it but it just confuses in the
> GR.
Why?
Is this compl
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
>> | bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:45:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> As others have said -- it's not easy to support
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:19:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Now there is a *different* question: should the current amd64 be in
> sid? I can see no reason why not, but then, I wonder why you all
> didn't get it in sid *long* ago. We put hurd-i386 in sid almost from
> the very first da
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, the destiny of amd64 is in the hands of the release manager
> and FTP masters, but that's not in their "duties" to add it. However,
> should the GR pass, I hope the DPL would have the honesty to remove the
> delegates who would fail to comp
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have some issue that's relevent to the GR to discuss then? Or to
> pure64's inclusion in sarge? If not, then let's move this to
> debian-amd64 where it'd be at least closer to on-topic.
pure64 is not in sid or testing. It therefore is inappro
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's not an adequate error--but it should be simple to write a
> > trivial "loader" which provides a more useful error.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> You get the same error as with any binary with unfullfillable
> libraries.
No, it's what you get when
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 3) Should the existing pure64 be added to sid?
>
> I think that is the only thing on-topic for vote.
There is no GR relevant to that question which has been proposed.
Therefore, it is not on topic.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 08:34:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> It was also suggested that people that met James personally have way
> less problems talking to him via mail later since then he already
> knows you.
I have never met James in person, yet have no problem whatsoever
communicati
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Do you have an example of this case? I havn't heard of one yet, not
> > > even with Oracle.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 04:51:05PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> They're going to charge
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Do you have an example of this case? I havn't heard of one yet, not
> > even with Oracle.
>
> K
They're going to charge you huge amounts to use their 64bit version
instead of their 32bit
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
>> problems communicating with James.
>
> During debconf4, I didn't have any problem communicating with
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
>> > dpkg.
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
>> already streesed mirrors
> >> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
> >> > dpkg.
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
> >> already streesed mirrors.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTE
> | It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
> | bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:45:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> As others have said -- it's not easy to support both 32 and 64 bit. If
> you want to do that p
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:33:46AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:28:06PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > mount --bind / /chroot/i366/chroot/amd64
>
> I may be wrong, but I think that means VFS is going to have to manage
> memory as if there are two independent copie
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:10:20AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > you mount the 64bit / inside the 32bit chroot (thus creating a circle)
> > and then configure the mime.type to use dchroot to change back into
> > 64bit.
>
> Doesn't this blow efficiency out of the water? Doesn't this mean
> that VF
* Raul Miller
| It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
| bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
As others have said -- it's not easy to support both 32 and 64 bit. If
you want to do that properly, you should implement multiarch.
Please keep migr
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> There is no and never will be a transition plan from i386 to
>> amd64. That is just not possible. You can't replace dpkg since then it
>> lacks its libc and you can't replace libc since then dpkg lacks
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
>> >
>> > read FAQ
>>
>> I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
>
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Do you have an example of this case? I havn't heard of one yet, not
> even with Oracle.
K
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:28:06PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> mount --bind / /chroot/i366/chroot/amd64
I may be wrong, but I think that means VFS is going to have to manage
memory as if there are two independent copies of the amd64 stuff.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Which means it's probably not going to change. This is an easy choice
> up through system install time, but a tough one upgrade time.
It's not all that hard to handle such an upgrade path.
> > No, the only thing referencing lib or lib64 is the ld.so.
>
> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
> > dpkg.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
> already streesed mirrors.
We're talking about something several orders
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:15:47AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> And get every package in the archive changed and updated for it ..
This (every package changed) doesn't have to happen until multiarch
is ready.
> > [Before you explained about multiarch, my only objection was the lack
> > of 32 bit
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:43:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> No. There never will be a biarch amd64 unless you pick up the pices
> and make one.
My concern is that it be possible for me to pick up the pieces and
make one.
> >> > [*] amd64 binaries can't be built from the sources in mai
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
>>
>> read FAQ
>
> I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
> userland able to use 64 bit programs?
man mount
moun
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> No. You obviously never tried or read the mails about it. If you don't
>> have lib64 -> lib linked you get lots and lots of random breakages and
>> misbuilds. In effect you have to to
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If you don't provide a dual 32/64 bit amd64, your transition strategy
>> > is going to be "install it on a different partition" or "backup, wipe
>> > and reinstall".
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> That is th
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:16:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The only thing special for amd64 is that at some point the /lib64 ->
>> /lib link might (or might not) be turned back into a real
>> directoy. But that can/will only happen if it can
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There is no and never will be a transition plan from i386 to
> amd64. That is just not possible. You can't replace dpkg since then it
> lacks its libc and you can't replace libc since then dpkg lacks the
> old one. And so on for every other essent
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Do you have some issue that's relevent to the GR to discuss then? Or to
> > pure64's inclusion in sarge? If not, then let's move this to
> > debian-amd64 where it'd be at least closer to
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
> >
> > read FAQ
>
> I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
> userland able to use 64 bit programs?
At the mome
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:53:02AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | Last time I checked [two days ago], the trivial change to dpkg to support
> | amd64 hadn't happened. I think making sure that the debian package tools
> | work right for the architecture should be considered pre-requisites for
>
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
>
> read FAQ
I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
userland able to use 64 bit programs?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> No. You obviously never tried or read the mails about it. If you don't
> have lib64 -> lib linked you get lots and lots of random breakages and
> misbuilds. In effect you have to touch and fix all 2000+ library
> packages. Ther
> > If you don't provide a dual 32/64 bit amd64, your transition strategy
> > is going to be "install it on a different partition" or "backup, wipe
> > and reinstall".
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> That is the plan and the current implementation. As such p
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:16:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The only thing special for amd64 is that at some point the /lib64 ->
> /lib link might (or might not) be turned back into a real
> directoy. But that can/will only happen if it can happen silently
> without disturbance.
Which
* Raul Miller
| > Everyone knows that. If it was, we'd be doing it and sarge would be >
| released in 2006 at best. That does NOT provide justification to not >
| support AMD64 at *all*.
|
| The question is, what's the upgrade path to an amd64 system which supports
| 32 bit code? Is that going
Le mer, 14/07/2004 à 13:50 -0600, Joel Baker a écrit :
> > Correct, a resolution that says "Foo must perform action A, instead of
> > not performing action A" is explicitly a no-op under the constitution,
> > and is also obviously silly.
>
> Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed for
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:22:01PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I fail to understand how you still don't get it. multiarch *is*
>> 64/32bit userland. Is there something you don't understand about that?
>
> What I really want is LSB compliant 64 bit use
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn'
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> sarge isn't supported/released, therefore this is not an issue when
>> discussing if amd64 should be released with sarge.
>
> You've confused the configuration of my machine with the issues
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We're going to be dealing with the i386
>> to multiarch transistion, at least this way it'll look reasonably the
>> same on all the platforms as opposted to special on amd64 because you
>> also have to change the base architecture type from amd64 to i386.
49 matches
Mail list logo
