On Monday 19 March 2007 02:51:24 Tom Lane wrote: > AFAIK, not building a ppc64 version should not be a "bug", indeed it > likely should be the default. Any arch that you have to exclude should be for a really good reason (like grub doesn't function on non x86 arches), or there should be a bug filed as to why that software doesn't compile for a particular arch. This is orthogonal as to whether or not it would be "useful" to have it for that arch. > 32-bit code runs faster than 64-bit code > on that arch, and so the only reason to build 64-bit is if you really > need access to more than 4Gb of address space. There are apps that need > that, but not all that many. > > So my position is that libraries should generally be built in both > flavors (since they can't predict which flavor of executable might want > them) but applications should be built as 32-bit unless there's a good > reason why they need a 64-bit address space. But most "applications" ship a set of "libraries" for use with that app and potentially other apps. So we have to build that "application" package for the other arch. Now if we did have that tag to prefer specific 64bit things over 3[21]bit a lot of this problem would go away for ppc/sparc. The same packages would be multilib but you'd get the right runtime and both libs. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpAxC2513v0x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
