On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:18:45AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> The most likely reason someone would pick the AMD64 architecture over
> the PowerPC architecture is that AMD64 can natively run I386 binaries.
Oh, really? Let's see - ~5 months ago I'd put together an
amd64 box (athlon64/3400,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:24:07PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:04:54PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > People choose ix86 (or amd64) over PowerPC because
> > a) bang/buck ratio.
> > b) runs windows (games.)
>
> Those are two reasons.
>
> Unfortunately, the current deb
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:02:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> If we release an amd64 in sarge, we're committing to supporting it.
> If the current port paints us into a corner, that's a good reason to
> not start supporting it yet.
Correct. However, that does not apply to putting it into sid.
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo
