From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:30:14 +0200 > Thus, I don't think any of the objections brought up against the > sparc64 port are valid. Neither is sparc64 64-bit only nor does > anyone anyhow prevent you in Debian to mix packages from different > architectures. In fact, Debian has by far the most flexible approach > to resolve the 32-bit/64-bit problem by providing a generic approach > for mixing libraries of different architectures. I think what irks people the most about what happened, is that the choosen a path is not the most optimal situation for the target platform. The most desirable would have been to build the bulk of userland binaries as 32-bit with v8+ extensions (perhaps even with -mcpu=xxx for some v9 cpu), and then for the specific packages that need it, build 64-bit. And I would assume that would be perhaps binutils and perhaps gcc and GIT. Yes, the 64-bit packages for everything should exist in the repository and be built, but the default install should not have everything 64-bit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
